Hearing Accused Public Servant U/S 20 Lokpal Act Mandatory Both At Pre-Investigation And Post-Investigation Stages: Delhi High Court

The Court observed that the statutory language leaves no scope for treating this safeguard as optional and that proceedings undertaken without such notice stand vitiated.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a government servant challenging the initiation and continuation of proceedings before the Lokpal under Section 20, on the ground that he was neither notified nor heard at the stage when the Lokpal formed its prima facie satisfaction and directed investigation.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, upon hearing the matter, held that “the statutory framework of Section 20 leaves no room for doubt that the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing at the pre-investigation stage as well as at the post-investigation stage is mandatory”.

The Bench further clarified that “Section 20(3) explicitly provides that the learned Lokpal 'shall', after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant, decide whether a prima facie case exists and thereafter proceed to direct an investigation”.

Advocate Hitesh Kumar represented the petitioner, while Advocate Nishant Katneshwar represented the respondents.

Background

The matter arose from allegations relating to irregularities in the conduct and evaluation of a departmental examination. The Lokpal initially directed a preliminary inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Upon receipt of reports, the Lokpal directed a full investigation under Section 20(3) and subsequently sought comments from multiple officers.

The petitioner contended that he was never issued a notice nor afforded a hearing at the stage when the Lokpal first formed its prima facie view and ordered an investigation. According to the petitioner, the statutory mandate under Section 20(1) and Section 20(3) required the Lokpal to call for his explanation before forming its opinion, and the omission to do so rendered the proceedings invalid.

The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had an opportunity during the later stage of the process and that the statute does not require multiple hearings.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court examined the statutory structure of Section 20 to determine whether the opportunity of hearing at both stages, pre-investigation and post-investigation, was mandatory.

The Court examined the third proviso to Section 20(1), which requires the Lokpal to call for the explanation of the public servant even before directing an investigation in cases where no preliminary inquiry is undertaken.

Upon examining Section 20(1), the Bench noted that “even at the stage of Section 20(1), where the Lokpal decides to direct an investigation, as distinguished from ordering a preliminary inquiry under Section 20(1)(a), the third proviso thereof mandates that before such investigation is ordered, the Lokpal “shall” call for the explanation of the public servant so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation exists”.

The Bench further noted that Section 20(3) uses the expression “shall”, requiring the Lokpal to give an opportunity of being heard before deciding whether a prima facie case exists. The Bench held that this wording reflects a mandatory obligation, not a discretionary one.

“The language employed in Section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act is peremptory and admits of no discretion; omission of this step, especially when it results in the registration of an FIR and the initiation of a criminal investigation, constitutes a violation of the statutory mandate and of the Principles of Natural Justice”, the Bench observed.

Furthermore, the Bench noted that even at the post-investigation stage, Section 20(7) again mandates that the public servant be allowed to offer comments on the investigation report. The Court held that “once the statutory opportunity of hearing contemplated under Section 20(3) is denied, subsequent participation at the post-investigation stage under Section 20(7) cannot retrospectively validate an order passed without fulfilling the mandatory precondition of hearing”.

The Bench also considered the consequences flowing from proceedings under the Lokpal Act, including the possibility of criminal prosecution, emphasising that “the Lokpal, being a quasi-judicial authority vested with powers that carry penal and stigmatic consequences, is duty-bound to act in strict conformity with the procedure prescribed by law”.

Analysing the record, the Court found that the petitioner was not given notice at the stage when the Lokpal formed its prima facie opinion. It relied on the principle that where a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone.

The Court further held that substantial compliance is not sufficient when the statute expressly prescribes a mandatory procedural safeguard. It noted that the omission to issue notice at the pre-investigation stage deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to explain his position at the very stage when the Lokpal arrived at its foundational conclusions.

Conclusion

Holding that the Lokpal failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of a hearing at the pre-investigation stage, the Court quashed the impugned proceedings insofar as they pertained to the petitioner.

The Court, however, clarified that the Lokpal is at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the statutory mandate.

Cause Title: Mujahat Ali Khan v. Lokpal of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9986-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Hitesh Kumar, Nishant Singh and Vishal Yadav, Advocates.

Respondents: Nishant Katneshwar and Vijay Singh, Advocates

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment