AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel representing party respondents. The entire dispute is with regard to non payment of DCRG amount by the employer on the ground of available a consent from the appellant. Apparently, appellant was a surety to a loan availed by a borrower from the Trivandrum Co-operative Urban Bank Limited (the "Bank" for short). Ext.P1 is the consent deed in favour of the Bank empowering them to deduct from his salary/wages or from any amount he might be entitled to receive from his employer.
According to the employer, thus, any amount he might be receiving from the employer includes DCRG benefits. Therefore, they are entitled to deduct the amount of loan and other dues from DCRG, in respect of loan to which the appellant was the surety.
After exhausting his remedies before the statutory authorities for payment, he approached Lok Ayukta with a complaint under Sec. 8 of Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, (for short "the Act) and Lok Ayukta proceeded to pass Ext.P12 wherein a specific direction was issued to the respondent-authorities to disburse DCRG due to the appellant together with interest at 9% for the delayed payment from the date of sanctioning of the DCRG by the Accountant General till the date of actual payment. This came to be challenged by the respondents as writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after referring to Sec. 8 and also II Schedule which was pressed into service proceeded to hold that the jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta under Sec. Section 12 of the Act is clearly circumscribed and the direction issued at Ext. P12 exceeds its jurisdiction conferred on the Lok Ayukta in construing the consent deed totally overlooking the proceedings of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Accordingly, the learned Judge quashed Ext.P12 order. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, a reading of Section 8 (1) and Schedule II of the Act would clearly indicate the competency of Lok Ayukta to deal with the dispute in question. He further contends that in sub Section (2) of Sec. 20 the word "forum" referred to in sub Section (2) has to be read as "form". Therefore, the complaint filed by the appellant before Lok Ayukta was justified as Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to entertain the issue. We have gone through Sec. 8 (1) Schedule II and also sub-Sec. 2 of Sec. 20. Section 20 deals with protection of action taken in good faith. Sub Section 2 of Section 20 reads as under :-
(2) No proceedings of the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall be held to be bad for want of forum and, except on the ground of jurisdiction, no proceedings or decision of the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court.
The above Section clearly indicates in a matter where the ground of jurisdiction is the controversy, it can be interfered. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel that protection of action taken in good faith and no proceedings of Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta can be held to be bad for want of forum cannot be accepted as the said provision excludes grounds of jurisdiction. Then so far as Section 8(1) and II Schedule, there is no dispute that complaints could be even in respect of pension and other benefits as stated in II Schedule. The question is as to what extent Lok Ayukta has competency to decide the issue. Section 12 of the Act in detail refers to reports of Lok Ayukta. Various stages how Lok Ayukta should redress the injustice caused to the complainant whenever an inaction comes to its notice is indicated. It also refers to further investigation which could be done by the Lok Ayukta in case of injustice caused to the complainant. The controversy presented before us is whether the Lok Ayukta could adjudicate the controversy in deciding or interpreting the consent deed alleged to have been executed by the appellant herein. Sec.12 reads as under:
Reports of Lok Ayukta etc. (1) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving grievance has been made, the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time, as may be specified in the report and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report.
(2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated, as the case may be, to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, the action taken on the report.
(3) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving an allegation has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated, either wholly or partly, he shall, by report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority and also intimate the complaint about its having made the report.
(4) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and, within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa - Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.
5). If the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case, under intimation to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned; but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the competent authority concerned and the complainant.
(6) The Lok Ayuakta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions as well as the functions of the Upa-Lok Ayuktas, to the Governor.
(7) On receipt of the special report under sub-section (5) or the annual report under sub-section (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof, together with an explanatory memorandum, to be laid before the Legislative Assembly.
(8) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta may, at his discretion, make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him, which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest in such manner and to such persons, as he may deem appropriate.
Section 12 indicates it can give its opinion in the form of a report even after conducting the investigation if it is necessary. But Sec. 12 does not confer any power on Lok Ayukta to adjudicate and decide the controversy with a specific direction to the authorities concerned as done in this case at Ext.P12. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in saying, so far as the direction given at Ext. P12, it exceeds jurisdiction. He has rightly taken support from the earlier decisions of this Court in George v. Saralakumari - 2007 (4) KLT 924 and State of Kerala v. Leela - 2009 (3) KLT SN. 41.
In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that none of the decisions relied upon by the learned Single Judge are of any assistance to the appellant herein as the facts and the circumstances in those decisions are entirely different from the facts presented in the above appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.