Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the Lokpal of India, while exercising its authority under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, cannot direct an investigation against a public servant unless that individual is first given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. In a case concerning allegations of tampering with OMR sheets in a departmental promotion examination, the Court found that the Lokpal had initiated a CBI probe without issuing prior notice to the concerned public servant, thereby violating the mandatory pre-investigation safeguard under Section 20(3). As a result, the Bench set aside the impugned orders insofar as they applied to the petitioner while permitting the Lokpal to proceed afresh in accordance with the statutory procedure.

The matter arose from a writ petition filed to challenge two orders issued by the Lokpal of India concerning allegations of manipulation of OMR sheets in a departmental promotion examination conducted by the West Central Railway for the post of Chief Loco Inspector. A complaint alleging tampering of OMR sheets in exchange for bribe was lodged on 06.09.2024. The Lokpal directed a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1)(a) of the Lokpal Act, and the CBI submitted its report on 09.12.2024. Comments from the Competent Authority and observations of the Inquiry Officer were subsequently furnished.

Also Read: Decree For Specific Performance Creates No Proprietary Interest; Supreme Court Allows Execution Based On Unregistered Assignment In Agreement-To-Sell Case

Show cause notices were issued to five public servants (RPS-1 to RPS-5), who participated in the proceedings. On 21.02.2025, after considering the preliminary inquiry material, the Lokpal directed a detailed investigation under Section 20(3)(a). The CBI thereafter registered an FIR and later submitted an Investigation Report recommending prosecution of the petitioner and another public servant. On 23.09.2025, the Lokpal sought comments under Section 20(7). The petitioner contended that he was neither issued a notice nor heard at the pre-investigation stage under Section 20(3), rendering the proceedings void. The respondent maintained that statutory procedure was followed and that the petitioner was afforded opportunity at the post-investigation stage.

The Court recorded that “the essential issue before this Court is whether… it is incumbent upon the said statutory authority to adhere to the procedural safeguards enshrined in the Lokpal Act, and in particular the mandate of Section 20(3).” It stated that the petitioner was named in the complaint but “no notice was issued to him prior to the passing of the Order dated 21.02.2025.” It further stated that the petitioner “was not afforded any opportunity either to file a response or to be heard at the stage of consideration under Section 20(3).” The Bench recorded that the petitioner “was brought within the ambit of the proceedings only after the CBI registered the FIR… and arraigned him as RPS-6.”

The Court stated that Section 20 “leaves no room for doubt that the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing at the pre-investigation stage… is mandatory.” It recorded that Section 20(3) “explicitly provides that the Lokpal ‘shall’, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the public servant, decide whether there exists a prima facie case.” It observed that the legislative scheme “makes it abundantly clear that compliance… is not optional but mandatory.”

Addressing the respondent’s claim that a later notice cured the defect, the Court stated that “subsequent participation at the post-investigation stage under Section 20(7) cannot retrospectively validate an order passed without fulfilling the mandatory precondition of hearing.” It recorded that “these are independent and individual requirements… and one cannot substitute the other.” The Court stated that the Lokpal, being a quasi-judicial authority, “is duty-bound to act in strict conformity with the procedure prescribed by law.”

Also Read: Lack Of Delegation Vitiates Assessments: Delhi High Court Quashes VAT Orders Passed By Audit Officer For Acting Without Jurisdiction

The Bench observed that the consequences of being named under the Act may include “transfer, suspension, or attachment of assets,” underscoring the necessity for “strict adherence to the procedural and substantive safeguards prescribed under the Statute.” It concluded that the non-compliance with Section 20(3) “strikes at the very root of administrative fairness and justice.”

The Court directed: “In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a careful examination of the material placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Impugned Orders dated 21.02.2025 and 23.09.2025, to the extent they pertain to the Petitioner, stand vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act.”

“Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed, and the Impugned Orders, insofar as they relate to the Petitioner, are quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that the learned Lokpal shall be at liberty, if it so chooses, to initiate proceedings afresh against the Petitioner in accordance with law, strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 20 of the Lokpal Act. The present application, along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of in the above terms. No Order as to costs. “

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Mr. Nishant Singh, Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Nishant Katneshwar, Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocates

Case Title: Mujahat Ali Khan v. Lokpal of India Through Under Secretary
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9986-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 16035/2025
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal; Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar