Lakhmir Singh Randhawa vs Lok Pal and Another

M.L. Singhal, J.—Sh. Lakhmir Singh Randhawa was the Education Minister, Punjab, in the Cabinet headed by Shri Beant Singh. According to him, there was no allegation ever made against him either that he had misused powers or that he had indulged in the corrupt practices during the tenures of his Education Ministership. On 29.1.1996, respondent No. 2-Capt. P.S. Ghuman (Retd.) filed complaint against him to the Lok Pal alleging that his son Ajay Pal Singh Randhawa had sought admission in 10 + 2 Examination two days before the commencement of the examinations against the rules and that he had deposited less fee than that prescribed. Copy of the complaint Annexure P/1 was sent to him and he was asked to appear on 26.8.1996 before the Lok Pal. On 26.8.1996, he appeared before the Lok Pal alongwith his counsel. Media people also came to enquire about his presence before the Lok Pal and as he appeared before the Lok Pal he was surrounded by the Media People. On the following day i.e. 27.8.1996, in the Media, the allegations levelled against him appeared and also his photographs. Media should have no access so far as the proceedings before the Lok Pal are concerned, as the proceedings before the Lok Pal are required to be in camera and the Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996, has laid down the prohibition so far as publication of the proceedings before the Lok Pal in the Media is concerned.

On 26.8.1996, when he appeared before the Lok Pal only his presence was marked. The case was adjourned for filing of the reply. On 20.9.1996 reply/comments dated 19.9.1996, were filed before the Lok Pal, stating that Ajay Pal Singh Randhawa, had sought admission a month prior to the examination as the examinations were supposed to commence from 16.9.1994 and not from 16.8.1994. The circumstances under which the fees deposited was also explained. The reply/comments dated 19.9.1996 is Annexure P/2.

Two years elapsed and no date was fixed. The petitioner was not called by any one. The Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1995, was repealed and the Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996 came into force, during the tenure of Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, Chief Minister, Punjab. Some amendments were made even in the Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996 and the Punjab Lok Pal Act No. 3 of 1997 came to be passed, during the tenure of Sh. Parkash Singh Badal, Chief Minister, Punjab, who is heading Akali-BJP combine.

On 17.5.1996, statement of Capt. G.S. Ghuman was recorded in support of his allegations. He added new allegations that Ajay Pal Singh Randhawa used another person''s Roll No. who was a failed candidate in order to appear in mid-term examination. So far as the petitioner is concerned, there was no allegation directed against him. Misconduct, if any, was imputed to his son-Shri Ajay Pal Singh Randhawa. There was no allegation that he was privy to the misconduct alleged to have been committed by Ajay Pal Singh Randhawa. Annexure P/3 is the statement made by Capt. P.S. Ghuman on 17.5.1996, before the Lok Pal. No notice was served to the petitioner regarding additional allegations based on statement Annexure P/3. No opportunity was given to him to reply/comment on the allegations made in the Statement of Capt. P.S. Ghuman, respondent No. 2. Capt. P.S. Ghuman did not appear before the Lok Pal after 17.5.1996.

According to 1996 Punjab Lok Pal Act, the proceedings before the Lok Pal under the old Act were not saved. For this reason, no fresh notice was issued to the petitioner during the tenure of Chief Ministership of Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Bhattal. Now the Akali Government is on a harassing spree so far as the Congress men are concerned. Old cases have been dug up and Lok Pal has issued summons to the petitioner. The petitioner has been appearing before the Lok Pal through his counsel. On 12.2.1998, the Lok Pal had passed an order requiring the petitioner to appear before him on each and every date. Annexure P/4 is copy of the order passed by the Lok Pal to this effect.

The petitioner''s counsel moved an application before the Lok Pal praying that proceedings before him should be dropped as the complainant was not appearing and in view of the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Act, Lok Pal could not enquire into any complaint suo motu. The petitioner''s personal presence was not necessary as the proceedings before the Lok Pal were not of criminal nature. As his counsel was appearing before the Lok Pal the Lok Pal cannot insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioner before him. Annexure P/5 is the application to this effect.

On 26.2.1998 vide order Annexure P/6, Lok Pal dismissed the application Annexure P/5.

In this Civil Writ Petition, the grievance of the petitioner Sh. Lakhmir Singh Randhawa is that the Lok Pal could not have taken cognizance of the complaint Annexure P/1 as the complaint Annexure P/1 dated 29.1.1996 has become cipher with the repeal of 1995 Act. He has prayed for the quashing of statement Annexure P/3 made by Capt. P.S. Ghuman before the Lok Pal. He has prayed for quashing Annexure P/3 as the petitioner had no connivance with his son Ajay Pal Singh Randhawa. He has also prayed for the quashing of Annexures P/4 and P/6 passed by the Lok Pal insisting upon the personal presence of Sh. Lakhmir Singh Randhawa on each and every date. Respondent No. 1 contested this petition urging that Lok Pal (Respondent No. 1) is a statutory authority under the provisions of Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996, authorised to call upon the person against whom there is a complaint of misconduct to produce evidence. Lok Pal can devise his own produce u/s 13(3). Procedure for conducting any such enquiry shall be such as the Lok Pal may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case keeping in view the rules of natural justice. Lok Pal shall have all powers of Civil Court while trying a suit under the C.P.C. in respect of matters enumerated in Section 4 of the Act. In this petition, notice of motion was issued on the limited issue namely whether the Lok Pal can compel the petitioner to appear in person on every date of hearing, "Complaint" as defined in Section 2(b) of the Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996, means a complaint alleging that a publicman has while holding any of the officers referred to in Clause (k) committed misconduct. The "complaint" as defined in Cr.P.C. in Section 2(d) means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. The term "complaint" as defined in Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is thus substantially different from the term "complaint" as defined in Section 2(b) of the Lok Pal Act, 1996, person against whom the complaint is made before the Lok Pal under the Lok Pal Act, 1996, is not an "accused". It is trial of a complaint before the Criminal Court that is conducted under the provisions of Cr.P.C. Before the Criminal Court the Commission of the offence will be tried while before the Lok Pal "complaint" will be for the commission of misconduct committed by a public man during the period he held any of the offices referred to in Clause 2(k) of the Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996. "Public man" in Clause 2(k) of the Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996, means the person who holds or has held the office of :-

(i) a Minister.

(ii) a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State.

(iii) The chairman and a member of a Board constituted by or under the State or Central Act or otherwise.

(iv) xxx xxx xxx(v) xxx xxx xxx

Misconduct by a publicman" has been defined in Section 3 of the Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996. Section 3 of the Lok Pal Act reads as under :-"A publicman commits misconduct:-

(a) if he is actuated in the discharge of his function as such publicman by motives of personal interest or other improper or corrupt motives.

or

(b) to (e) xx xxx xxx

Offence on the other hand is defined in Section 2 Clause (N) of the Cr.P.C. as an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being inforce. It is thus apparent that public man having committed misconduct, is not the same thing as an accused having committed an offence. The Lok Pal will inquire into misconduct alleged to; have been committed by the public man under the Lok Pal Act, 1996, while a criminal Court will try the offence committed by the accused and in case he finds him guilty may impose punishment upon him. Lok Pal if after making enquiry in respect of the complaint is satisfied and considers it proper wholly or partly, he shall report in writing communicating his findings to the competent authority and intimate the complainant who is a public man. The competent authority in relation to the complaint against public man is "Governor" as defined in Section 2(a) of Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996. Lok Pal is an enquiry officer of the type appointed under the Commission of Enquiries Act, 1952.

Lok Pal''s decision thus is not akin to the decision of a Criminal Court. A criminal Court can insist upon the personal appearance of the accused on every date of hearing. The Criminal Court may in its discretion exempt the accused from personal appearance before it on any date or dates of hearing.

With a view to smoothen the holding of enquiry Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996, has conferred upon the Lok Pal the powers of the CPC namely in respect of matters viz. summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, requiring the discovery and production of any document.

It is not envisaged in Section 14 of the Punjab Lok Pal Act, 1996, that Lok Pal can insist upon the personal presence of a "public man" on any date or on every date of hearing. In fact insistence upon personal presence of the public man before the Lok Pal on any date or on every date of hearing is not envisaged under the provisions of the Punjab Lok Pal Act, for the reasons that public man is not an accused and the Lok Pal is not a criminal court. Lok Pal may, however, call upon the petitioner to appear before him on any date when he is to record his statement or for any other purpose, for transacting which his personal presence alone is required and his counsel''s presence may not be able to serve the desired purpose.

We are of the opinion that Lok Pal cannot compel the petitioner to appear before him personally on any date or on every date of hearing. So, order Annexure P/6 is quashed to this extent, Civil Writ Petition succeeds and is accepted to this extent.