Lokayuk a Haryana Annual Repor for He Year 2016-2017 (01.04.2016 O 31.03.2017)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LOKAYUK A HARYANA ANNUAL REPOR FOR HE YEAR 2016-2017 (01.04.2016 O 31.03.2017) I had ass med charge as Lokay kta of Haryana on 19.07.2016 and as s ch this is virt ally the report on the f nctioning of Lokay kta Instit tion for the aforesaid period nder report. However, it may be mentioned that the statistical reports forming part of this report cover the period 12.01.2016 to 31.03.2017, as my learned Predecessor Hon’ble Mr. J stice Pritam Pal had s bmitted interim report for the period from 01.04.2015 to 17.01.2016, which formed the major part of the Financial Year 2015-16. With a view to address the problems of redressal of citizens’ grievances, the President of India, vide notification dated 40/3/65-AR(P) dated 5.1.1966, appointed the Administrative Reforms Commission. The object for appointing the Commission was to ens re the highest standards of efficiency and integrity in the p blic services, for making p blic administration an effective instr ment for carrying o t the social and economic policies of the Government and achieving social and economic goals of development for the benefit of citizens of the co ntry. The Commission was asked to examine the vario s 2 iss es. One of the terms of reference, specifically assigned to the Commission, was to deal with the problems of redress of citizens’ grievance, namely:- i) the adeq acy of existing arrangements for redress of grievances; and ii) the need for introd ction of any new machinery, for special instit tion, for redress of grievances. The Commission, after having detailed deliberations on the s bject, s bmitted its report to the Prime Minister vide letter dated 20.10.1966. The s ggestion made by the Commission was that there sho ld be one a thority dealing with the complaints against the administrative acts of Ministers or Secretaries to Government at the Centre and in the States. Another s ggestion was made for setting p another a thority in each State and at the Centre for dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of other officials. It was also s ggested that all these a thorities sho ld be independent of the exec tive, the legislative and the j diciary. It was so noted by the Hon’ble S preme Co rt in its j dgment in case of Justic Chandrash karaiah (R tir d) Vs. Jan k r C. Krishna and oth rs, (2013) 3 SCC 117. 3 The relevant extract of the report of the Commission, contained in para 21, 23 to 25, 36, 37 and 38 thereof, reads as nder:- “21. We have caref lly considered the political aspect mentioned above and while we recognize that there is some force in it, we feel that the Prime Minister’s hands wo ld be strengthened rather than weakened by the instit tion. In the first place, the recommendations of s ch an a thority will save him from the npleasant d ty of investigation against his own colleag es. Secondly, it will be possible for him to deal with the matter witho t the glare of p blicity which often vitiates the atmosphere and affects the j dgment of the general p blic. Thirdly, it wo ld enable him to avoid internal press res which often help to shield the delinq ent. What we have said abo t the Prime Minister applies mutatis mutandis to Chief Minister. Cases of corruption: 23. P blic opinion has been agitated for a long time over the prevalence of corr ption in the administration and it is likely that cases coming p 4 before the independent a thorities mentioned above might involve allegations or act al evidence of corr pt motive and favo rtism. We think that this instit tion sho ld deal with s ch cases as well, b t where the cases are s ch as might involve criminal charge or miscond ct cognizable by a Co rt, the case sho ld be bro ght to the notice of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be. The latter wo ld then set the machinery of law in motion after following appropriate proced res and observing necessary formalities. The present system of Vigilance Commissions wherever operative will then become red ndant and wo ld have to be abolished on the setting p of the instit tion. Designation of the authorities of the institution: 24. We s ggest that the a thority dealing with complaints against Ministers and Secretaries to Government may be designated “Lokpal” and the other a thorities at the Centre and in the States empowered to deal with complaints against other officials may be designated “Lokay kta”. A word may be said abo t o r decision to incl de Secretaries 5 actions along with those of Ministers in the j risdiction of the Lokpal. We have taken this decision beca se we feel that at the level at which Ministers and Secretaries f nction, it might often be diffic lt to decide where the role of one f nctionary ends and that of the other begins. The line of demarcation between the responsibilities and infl ence of the Minister and Secretary is thin; in any case m ch depends on their personal eq ation and personality and it is most likely that in many a case the determination of responsibilities of both of them wo ld be involved. 25. The following wo ld be the main feat res of the instit tions of Lokpal and Lokay kta:- (a) They sho ld be demonstrably independent and impartial. (b) Their investigations and proceedings sho ld be cond cted in private and sho ld be informal in character. (c) Their appointment sho ld, as far as possible, be nonpolitical. 6 (d) Their stat s sho ld compare with the highest j dicial f nctionaries in the co ntry. (e) They sho ld deal with matters in the discretionary field involving acts of inj stice, corr ption or favo rtism. (f) Their proceedings sho ld not be s bject to j dicial interference and they sho ld have the maxim m latit de and powers in obtaining information relevant to their d ties. (g) They sho ld not look forward to any benefit or pec niary advantage from the exec tive Government. Bearing in mind these essential feat res of the instit tions, the Commission recommend that the Lokpal be appointed at the Centre and Lokaya kta at the State level. he Lokayukta 36. So far as the Lokay kta is concerned, we envisage that he wo ld be concerned with problems similar to those which wo ld face the Lokpal in respect of Ministers and Secretaries tho gh, in 7 respect of action taken at s bordinate levels of official hierarchy, he wo ld in many cases have to refer complainants to competent higher levels. We, therefore, consider that his powers, f nctions and proced res may be prescribed mutatis mutandis with those which we have laid down for the Lokpal. His stat s, position, emol ments, etc. sho ld, however, be analogo s to those of a Chief J stice of a High Co rt and he sho ld be entitled to have free access to the Secretary to the Government concerned or to the Head of the Department with whom he will mostly have to deal to sec re j stice for a deserving citizen. Where he is dissatisfied with the action taken by the department concerned, he sho ld be in a position to seek a q ick corrective action from the Minister or the Secretary concerned, failing which he sho ld be able to draw the personal attention of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minster as the case may be. It does not seem necessary for s to spell o t here in more detail the f nctions and powers of the Lokay kta and the proced res to be followed by him. 8 Constitutional amendment-whether necessary? 37. We have caref lly considered whether the instit tion of Lokpal will req ire any Constit tional amendment and whether it is possible for the office of the Lokpal to be set p by Central Legislation so as to cover both the Central and State f nctionaries concerned. We agree that for the Lokpal to be f lly effective and for him to acq ire power, witho t conflict with other f nctionaries nder the Constit tion, it wo ld be necessary to give a constit tional stat s to his office, his powers, f nctions, etc. We feel, however, that it is not necessary for Government to wait for this to materialize before setting p the office. The Lokpal, we are confident, wo ld be able to f nction in a large n mber of cases witho t the definition of his position nder the Constit tion. The Constit tional amendment and any conseq ential modification of the relevant stat te can follow. In the meantime, Government can ens re that the Lokpal or Lokay kta is appointed and takes preparatory action to set p his office, to lay down his proced res, etc., 9 and commence his work to s ch extent as he can witho t the constit tional provisions. We are confident that the necessary s pport will be forthcoming from the Parliament. Conclusion. 38. We sho ld like to emphasise the fact that we attach the highest importance to the implementation, at an early date, of the recommendations contained in this o r Interim Report.