Confidential preliminary verification permits interim suspension or transfer recommendations without prior notice or hearing.

The statutory scheme distinguished preliminary verification from regular investigation, treating the former as a confidential screening stage to assess whether a complaint disclosed a prima facie basis for further action. An opportunity of hearing was held to arise at the regular investigation stage, not at the preliminary stage. The power to submit a report was construed to include an interim recommendation where necessary to support an effective inquiry and prevent interference with records or investigation. On that construction, the absence of prior notice or hearing did not invalidate the interim report, and the recommendation for suspension or transfer was within power.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Lokayukta could, at the stage of preliminary verification, submit an interim report recommending suspension or transfer of the public servant without issuing prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between preliminary verification and regular investigation. Preliminary verification was required to be conducted in private and in confidence to ascertain whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie basis for further action. The provisions also contemplated that an opportunity of hearing would arise at the stage of regular investigation, not at the preliminary stage. The power to make a report included the power to make an interim recommendation where necessary to facilitate an effective inquiry and prevent interference with records or the investigation. On that construction, the absence of prior notice or hearing at the preliminary verification stage did not invalidate the interim action.

Conclusion: The interim report and the recommendation for suspension or transfer were held to be within power, and no prior notice or hearing was required at the preliminary verification stage.

---