JUDGMENT : Before proceeding further, it would be relevant that the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2019 but due to some error in the aforesaid order Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed being C.M.P. No.327 of 2019 which was allowed vide order dated 14.06.2019 by recalling the order dated 23.04.2019 in exercise of power of review and as such the writ petition has been listed. 2. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 01.06.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.01 Public (Irrigation) 01/2015, whereby and whereunder, the Hon’ble Lokayukta has recommended to institute an F.I.R. 3. The sole ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing such order, the petitioner has not been provided an opportunity to offer his comments, as provided under Section 10 (1) (b) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 and therefore, the order impugned is not in consonance with the Statute, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2, inter alia, stating therein, regarding the nature of allegation, preliminary enquiry and the Rule having been followed, as provided under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, before delving into the merit of the issues, and after appreciating their rival submissions, the factual aspects, as has been pleaded by the writ petitioner is that he being the public servant against whom, a complaint has been made before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, who upon its receipt, has directed the competent authority of the District Rural Development Authority-cum-Nodal Officer to submit a report and in pursuance thereto, reports have been submitted, wherein, it has been brought to the notice that against the said allegations, departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi has also been directed to conduct an enquiry, who thereafter conducted an enquiry. Thereafter, the reports have been submitted, wherein, it has been found that the petitioner has disproportionate assets with his possession and thereafter, direction has been passed upon the Additional Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi to institute an F.I.R. against the petitioner and take legal action after collecting evidence against him. The said order is under challenge. 6. Thereafter, the reports have been submitted, wherein, it has been found that the petitioner has disproportionate assets with his possession and thereafter, direction has been passed upon the Additional Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi to institute an F.I.R. against the petitioner and take legal action after collecting evidence against him. The said order is under challenge. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the issue of noncompliance of the statutory provision, as stipulated under Section 10 (1) (b) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 and since the same has not been complied with, therefore, the order impugned being not in consonance with the Statute, is not sustainable, accordingly, has been sought to be quashed. This Court before going into the legality and propriety of the order, as per the ground taken by the petitioner deem it fit and proper to deal with the provision of Section 10 (1) (b) of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, behind which the Lokayukta Act, has been enacted upon. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the rival submissions, this Court thinks it proper to have discussion about the provision of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 prior to coming into effect of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’, 2001’), there was operation of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 1973 and after bifurcation of the State, the Act, 2001 has been promulgated. 8. The Act contains definition of grievance and allegation apart from the other definitions, but the grievance and allegation is the issue, which is to be dealt with in the instant writ petition, therefore, the definitions are being referred hereunder :- “2 (b). “Allegation” in relation to a public servant means by affirmation that such public servant – (i) Has abused his position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person. (ii) Was actuated in the discharge of the function as such public servant by personal interest or improper, corrupt motives, or (iii) is guilty of corruption or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant. 2(d). “Grievance” means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration; 9. (ii) Was actuated in the discharge of the function as such public servant by personal interest or improper, corrupt motives, or (iii) is guilty of corruption or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant. 2(d). “Grievance” means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration; 9. It is evident from the definition of allegation that the same pertains to a public servant, if such public servant has abused his position to obtain any gain or any favour to himself or to any other person to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person, was actuated in the discharge of the function by personal interest or improper corrupt motives or is guilty of corruption or lack of integrity in his capacity, as the public servant. 10. While, on the other hand, the grievance means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration. 11. Section 10 of the ‘Act’, 2001’ provides procedure in respect of investigation, which stipulates hereunder:- “10. Procedure in respect of investigation.-(1) Where the Lokayukta proposes (after making such preliminary inquiry, as he deems fit) to conduct any investigation under this Act he- (a) shall forward a copy of the complaint or, in the case of any investigation which he proposes to conduct on his own motion, a statement setting out the grounds therefor, to the public servant concerned and the competent authority concerned; (b) shall afford to the public servant concerned an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or statement; and (c) may make such orders as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems, fit. (2) Every such investigation shall be conducted in private and in particular, the identity of the complaint and of the public servant affected by the investigation shall not be disclosed to the public or the press whether before, during or after the investigation; Provided that the Lokayukta may conduct any investigation relating to a matter of definite public importance in public if he, for reasons to be recorded in writing, thinks fit to do so. (3) Save as aforesaid the procedure for conducting any such investigation shall be such as the Lokayukta considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (3) Save as aforesaid the procedure for conducting any such investigation shall be such as the Lokayukta considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case. (4) The Lokayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is in his opinion – (a) The complaint is frivolous or fexatious or is not made in good faith; or (b) There are no sufficient grounds for invesgitation or, as the case may be for continuing the investigation; or (c) Other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to avail of such remedies. (4-A) The Lokayukta shall not proceed with any investigation under this Act where the Supreme Court or the High Court issues any direction, order or writ under Article 32 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the matter mentioned in the complaint under investigation. (5) In any case whether the Lokayukta decides not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint, he shall record his reasons therefor and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned. (6) The conduct of an investigation under this Act in respect of any action shall not affect such action, or any power or duty of any public servant to take further action with respect to any matter subject to the investigation.” 12. It is evident from the aforesaid provision of Section 10, more particularly Section 10 (1) (b) that where the Hon’ble Lokayukta proposes to conduct any investigation, he shall afford to the public servant concerned an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or statement. 13. Section 11 stipulates about collecting evidence by the Hon’ble Lokayukta and for the said purpose, any such investigation including the preliminary enquiry, the Hon’ble Lokayukta shall have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, i.e. summoning. 14. Section 12 pertains to reports of the Hon’ble Lokayukta, the said provision is question for consideration, since the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Lokayukta has been questioned in the instant writ petition, therefore, the said provision needs to be referred hereunder : “ 12. 14. Section 12 pertains to reports of the Hon’ble Lokayukta, the said provision is question for consideration, since the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Lokayukta has been questioned in the instant writ petition, therefore, the said provision needs to be referred hereunder : “ 12. Reports of Lokayukta -(1) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving a grievance has been or can be or could have been made, the Lokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or any other person, the Lokayukta shall by a report in writing, recommend to the public servant and the competent authority concerned that such injustice or undue hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report. (2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent upon sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the term specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta, the action taken for compliance with the report. (3) If after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving and allegation has been or can be or could have been made, the Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation ccan be substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by a report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations alongwith the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. (4) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and intimate within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the Lokayukta, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. (5) If the Lokayukta 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 information to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned; but whether 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 complainant concerned. (5 A) Where in a report forwarded by the Lokayukta any recommendation imposing the penalty of removal from the office of a public servant, falling within sub-clause (iv) of Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act, had been made, it shall be lawful for the Government without any further enquiry to take action on the basis of the said recommendation for the removal of such public servant from his office and for making his ineligible for being elected to any office, specified by the Government in this behalf notwithstanding anything contained in any law for time being in force. (6) The Lokayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions under this Act to the Governor. (7) On receipt of a 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 each House off the State Legislature. (8) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) off Section 10, the Lokayukta may, at his discretion, make available from time to time, the substance off 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.” 15. It is evident from the provision, as contained in Section 12 subsection (i), which pertains to the grievance, if suffered by a complaint or any other person, the Lokayukta shall by a report in writing, recommend to the public servant and the competent authority concerned that such injustice or undue hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such a manner and within such time, as may be specified in the report. While sub-section (2) of Section 12 provides power upon the competent authority to whom a report is sent upon sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the term, specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Hon’ble Lokayukta, the action taken for compliance with the report. Thus, it is evident that Section 12 (i) and (ii) pertains to grievance of complainant or any other person. Thus, it is evident that Section 12 (i) and (ii) pertains to grievance of complainant or any other person. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 pertains to allegation and in case of allegation, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving and allegation has been or can be or could have been made, the Hon’ble Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation can be substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by a report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. Sub-section (4) stipulates that the competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the ‘Act’, 2001 and intimate within three months of the date of receipt of the report, the Hon’ble Lokayukta, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. Sub-section (5) stipulates that if the Hon’ble Lokayukta 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 information 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 complainant concerned. It is, thus, evident that sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) stipulates that provision of submission of a report as also the special Report in case by the action taken by the competent authority, the Hon’ble Lokayukta is not satisfied, before the Governor. 16. Thereafter, new Section i.e. Section (5A) has been inserted by the Bihar Act of 1988, which contains provision to the effect that where in a report forwarded by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, any recommendation imposing the penalty of removal from the office of a public servant, falling within sub-clause (iv) and Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act, had been made, it shall be lawful for the Government without any further enquiry to take action on the basis of the said recommendation for removal of such public servant from his office and for making ineligible for being elected to any office, specified by the Government in this behalf, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for time being in force. 17. 17. It is evident from the provision as contained in Section 12 that initially i.e. at the time of enactment of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 1973, there were only 5 sub-sections i.e. sub-section (1) to (5) but the legislature has taken decision to insert the provision of Section (5A) for the reason that under sub-section (5), only provision has been made by conferring power upon the Hon’ble Lokayukta to make a special report to the Governor and also inform the complainant of the action to be taken in terms of the said special report and, as such, Section 5 (A) has been inserted by way of Act, 1988 for taking action for the removal of the public servant without any further enquiry. Thus, it is evident that the intent of the statute by inserting the provision under Section 5A to confer power upon the Hon’ble Lokayukta to make special report before the Government and the Government is required to act upon the same by removing the public servant from service. It also does suggest that no power has been conferred upon the Hon’ble Lokayukta to take action for removal of the public servant, save and except, recommendation. 18. The issue of power of Hon’ble Lokayukta has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji-Vs.-State of Haryana and Others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 533 , wherein, after taking the aid of the judgment rendered in the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd.-Vs.-P. N. Sharma reported in AIR 1965 SC 1595 at para 12, it has been held hereunder:- “12. After so stating, the learned Judge referred to the opinions of Kania, C.J. and Das, J. in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P. N. Sharma and arrived at the following conclusion: (Chandrashekaraiah case, SCC pp 167-68, para 112) “112. As mentioned above, an Upa-Lokayukta does function as an adjudicating authority but the Act places him short of a judicial authority. He is much more “judicial” than an investigator or an inquisitorial authority largely exercising administrative or executive functions and powers. As mentioned above, an Upa-Lokayukta does function as an adjudicating authority but the Act places him short of a judicial authority. He is much more “judicial” than an investigator or an inquisitorial authority largely exercising administrative or executive functions and powers. Under the circumstances, taking an overall view of the provision of the Act and the law laid down, my conclusion si that the Upa-Lokayukta is a quasi-judicial authority or in any event an authority exercising functions, powers, duties and responsibilities conferred by the Act as a suit generis quasi-judicial authority.” The Hon’ble Apex Court had arrived at the formal conclusion as also the judgment rendered in the case of Justice ChandraShekharaiah (Retired)-Vs.-Janekere C. Krishna and Others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 117 , the aforesaid pronouncement in the case of Justice ChandraShekharaiah (Retired) (Supra) was challenged on the ground that one of the constitutional functionaries was not consulted and emphasis was on the nature of the post held by the Hon’ble Lokayukta or Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta, since the plea was taken that when the posting of a public servant is quasi-judicial in nature, their functioning has to be given the same character and once was closed with such functioning and cannot taken by them, is subject to challenge before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order and in that event, the adjudication has to be recorded as civil in nature at para 16 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed that consideration was the nature for the post of Hon’ble Lokayukta or Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta and it has been held that neither the Hon’ble Lokayukta nor the Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta can direct for implementation of his report, but, it investigates and after investigation, if it is found that a public servant has committed criminal offence, prosecution can be initiated. 19. After discussing the purpose and intent of the enactment of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, it is not in dispute that the purpose is to restrain upon the malpractices and unfairness in discharge of public duties for which the elaborate provision has been made, one of which is Section 10, which provides procedure in respect of investigation. 20. 19. After discussing the purpose and intent of the enactment of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, it is not in dispute that the purpose is to restrain upon the malpractices and unfairness in discharge of public duties for which the elaborate provision has been made, one of which is Section 10, which provides procedure in respect of investigation. 20. It is evident from the said provision that if the Hon’ble Lokayukta proposes after making such preliminary enquiry, as he deems fit to conduct any investigation under this Act, he (a) shall forward a copy of the complaint or, in the case of any investigation which he proposes to conduct on his own motion, a statement setting out the grounds therefor, to the public servant concerned and the competent authority concerned, (b) shall afford to the public servant concerned an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or statement. 21. It is, thus, evident that if the Hon’ble Lokayukta proposes to conduct any investigation, prior to that, he shall forward a copy of the complaint or, in the case of any investigation which he proposes to conduct on his own motion, a statement setting out the grounds therefor, to the public servant concerned and the competent authority concerned and (b) shall afford to the public servant concerned an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or statement, meaning thereby before proceeding for investigation, a copy of the complaint is to be served upon the public servant concerned against whom the complaint has been made. 22. In the light of the aforesaid provision, the stand which has been taken by the petitioner regarding non-compliance of the Section 10 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, 2001 has been examined by this Court and it is evident from the pleadings made in the writ petition, wherein, a specific stand has been taken by the petitioner that no opportunity of making any comment on the complaint made against him, has been provided. This specific assertion has not been controverted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents. 23. Mr. This specific assertion has not been controverted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents. 23. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Hon’ble Lokayukta has tried to impress upon this Court by referring to the provision of Section 10 of the Act, 2001, which provides procedure for conducting any such investigation as the Hon’ble Lokayukta considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case and therefore, the submission has been advanced that the discretion lies upon the Hon’ble Lokayukta to lay down the procedure for conducting any such investigation and accordingly, in exercise of the said power, has directed the authority to conduct investigation, and hence, the stand, which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not proper. This Court after appreciating the aforesaid arguments is of the considered view that the applicability of sub-section (3) of Section 10, which is for the procedure for conducting any such investigation and if the said provision would be read along with the provision, as contained in sub-section (1), which provides that where the Hon’ble Lokayukta proposes (after making such preliminary inquiry, as he deems fit) to conduct any investigation, he, shall afford to the public servant concerned an opportunity to offer his comments, meaning thereby, the opportunity to offer his comments or forwarding a copy of the complaint, is an action prior to the stage of investigation. 24. This Court has also sought for the assistance of the learned Advocate General, who has assisted this Court by referring to the statutory provision, as contained under sub-section (1) and subsection (3) of Section 10 of the Act, 2001 and has submitted the spirit and intent of the Act that the copy of the complaint or opportunity to offer comment on such complaint or statement as required under sub-section (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, 2001 or provide a copy of the complaint or the statement setting out the grounds for directing an investigation, as provided under subsection (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, 2001, is the stage prior to the stage of investigation. 25. 25. This Court after taking into consideration the intent and spirit of the provision, as contained under Section 10 (1) (a) and (b) read with sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, 2001, is of the considered view that before proceeding for investigation, the Hon’ble Lokayukta is required to forward a copy of the complaint or in the case of any investigation, which he proposes to conduct, the statements setting out the grounds to the public servant concerned as provided under sub-section (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, 2001 and shall afford to the public servant concerned an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or statement, as required under sub-section (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, 2001. It is evident from the order impugned that the Hon’ble Lokayukta has proceeded by directing the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi for conducting investigation without resorting to the provision of Section 10 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, 2001 and therefore, the said part of the direction is not in consonance with the provision, as contained therein. It is further evident from the order impugned that there is reference of initiation of departmental proceedings, about which, the Hon’ble Lokayukta has been informed by the authority of the District Rural Development Authority, in view of the fact that the departmental proceeding has been initiated, which was initiated prior to the order dated 01.06.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta and therefore, this Court is not interfering with the said departmental proceedings, rather directing the authority to proceed with the departmental proceedings in accordance with law without any unnecessary delay. However, since the provision as contemplated under Section 10 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, 2001 has not been followed, therefore, the part of the order impugned, whereby and whereunder, the Additional Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jharkhand, Ranchi has been directed to institute an F.I.R., conduct thorough investigation, collect evidences and to take appropriate legal action, so far as it relates to the petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Das, is hereby quashed. In consequence thereof, the matter is remitted before the Hon’ble Lokayukta to proceed from the stage of the institution of the complaint by resorting to the provision as contained in Section 10 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act, 2001 as the case may be and take appropriate decision in accordance with law by serving a copy of the complaint upon the petitioner within a period of three weeks’ from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The petitioner, on receipt of the copy of the order, if so wishes, may file their comment within a period of three weeks’ from the date of receipt of the copy of the complaint. The Hon’ble Lokayukta will proceed thereafter in accordance with law by taking the appropriate decision within reasonable period as per its own wisdom. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.