Lokayukta inquiry can proceed alongside criminal investigation when the statute contains no express bar

The Lokayukta may continue an inquiry under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 despite a parallel FIR and criminal investigation, because the Act exhaustively states the excluded matters and contains no general bar. An earlier interim recommendation on conduct norms for MLAs did not suspend or exhaust the power to inquire into a separate complaint arising from a specific incident. The procedure adopted, including requiring disclosure of defence and accepting affirmation of the complaint in a purposive sense, was within the Lokayukta's procedural discretion under the Act and did not violate Article 21 or natural justice. The writ challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Lokayukta could proceed with an inquiry under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 despite the pendency of an FIR and criminal investigation arising from the same incident; (ii) Whether the inquiry was premature because the Lokayukta had earlier made an interim recommendation to the Lieutenant Governor regarding framing of conduct norms for MLAs; (iii) Whether the procedure adopted by the Lokayukta, including requiring the petitioner to disclose his defence and the manner of affirming the complaint, violated Article 21 or otherwise exceeded the statutory power.

Issue (i): Whether the Lokayukta could proceed with an inquiry under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 despite the pendency of an FIR and criminal investigation arising from the same incident.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits the Lokayukta to inquire into allegations against public functionaries under Section 7, and Section 8 exhaustively specifies only the matters excluded from inquiry. The existence of parallel criminal proceedings does not, by itself, bar an inquiry under the Act, because allegations of the kind defined in Section 2(b) may also attract penal consequences under the IPC or corruption law. The principles governing stay of departmental proceedings in grave criminal cases involving complicated questions of law and fact were not attracted on the facts, as the controversy was essentially a direct factual dispute about who assaulted whom and did not require the inquiry to await the criminal case.

Conclusion: The Lokayukta was competent to continue the inquiry notwithstanding the FIR and investigation.

Issue (ii): Whether the inquiry was premature because the Lokayukta had earlier made an interim recommendation to the Lieutenant Governor regarding framing of conduct norms for MLAs.

Analysis: The Act contemplates wide powers in the Lokayukta to receive complaints, inquire into allegations, and also make recommendations on matters noticed in the discharge of functions. An interim recommendation on one aspect of public conduct did not exhaust or suspend the Lokayukta's authority to inquire into a separate complaint arising from a particular incident. The allegation that an MLA assaulted a public servant was capable of falling within the statutory definition of allegation even if general conduct norms were yet to be framed.

Conclusion: The inquiry was not vitiated by the earlier interim recommendation, and the Lokayukta could proceed.

Issue (iii): Whether the procedure adopted by the Lokayukta, including requiring the petitioner to disclose his defence and the manner of affirming the complaint, violated Article 21 or otherwise exceeded the statutory power.

Analysis: Section 10 permits the Lokayukta to regulate procedure, subject to natural justice, and the Investigation Rules also contemplate a flexible inquiry process. The petitioner's contention that disclosure of defence before the complainant would violate fundamental rights was rejected because Lokayukta proceedings are distinct from criminal adjudication and any findings would not bind the criminal court. The expression "affirmation" in Section 2(b)(i) was construed purposively to include a statement by the complainant standing by the complaint, and not necessarily an oath in a technical sense.

Conclusion: The procedure adopted by the Lokayukta was lawful and caused no prejudice warranting interference.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be without merit, and the challenge to the Lokayukta's proceedings and procedural orders failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings before the Lokayukta under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 may continue independently of parallel criminal proceedings unless the statute expressly bars inquiry, and the Lokayukta may regulate inquiry procedure consistently with natural justice through a purposive reading of the Act.

---