JUDGMENT
Lingaraja Rath, J.
1. The orders assailed by the petitioner in this case are those passed by respondent No. 1, the Lok Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh on 17-4-1996 and 12-6-1996 and the order passed by respondent No. 2, the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar in pursuance of the order of 17-4-1996 on 25-4-1996 transferring the petitioner as Special R.I. (ROR), MJR.O’s. office, Amrabad and the subsequent modification of it by order of 16-5-1996 posting him as Senior Assistant, M.R.O’s. Office, Alampur. Since the petitioner is a Government servant and any disadvantageous orders of transfer are assailable only before the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has confined his challenge only to the orders passed by the learned Lok Ayukta and not the consequential orders passed by the District Collector effecting his transfer. Even though tine orders adversely affecting the petitioner’s posting are not challenged yet, because of the very important questions raised as to the procedure followed by the Lok Ayukta and the order passed affecting the petitioner substantially which ultimately resulted in the orders of transfers being passed, we have thought it fit not to reject the application only because the consequential orders are not challenge before us. The order complained of by the petitioner undoubtedly affects the petitioner substantially and as such we have taken up the writ petition for consideration.
2. The facts, to state in brief, appear to be that respondent No. 3 made a complaint before the Lok Ayukta and order was passed by him on 17-4-1996 requesting the respondent No. 2 to transfer the petitioner to a distant place far away from Shadnagar Mandal as it looked that he had developed deep roots and vested interests in the Mandal by working for too long a period in that area. The District Collector was desired to inform the Lok Ayukta by 12-6-1996 of the action taken. On receipt of the order respondent No. 2 transferred the petitioner on 25-4-1996 from the office of the M.R.O., Kothur to the office of the M.R.O., Amrabad posting him as special R.I. (ROR) there. But as the petitioner was on election duty he was not relieved from the post and after completion of the elections he was relieved on 15-5-1996 to report before the M.R.O., Amrabad. But on the very next day, order was passed on 16-5-1996, modifying the earlier order issued on 25-4-1996, transferring and posting the petitioner as Senior Assistant in the office of the M.R.O., Alampur. The petitioner made a representation before the Lok Ayukta in the Complaint No. 496 of 1996 registered at the instance of respondent No. 3 to punish the complainant as having lodged false complaint against him and also bringing to his notice that he had been put to various difficulties because of the order of transfer as his daughters are studying in Hyderabad and he had been transferred on false allegations. His representation was rejected by the Lok Ayukta refusing to interfere as the petitioner had been transferred as per the specific order passed on 17-4-1996 and he had served too long a period at one place and had developed deep roots.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 stating that on a complaint received from respondent No. 3 it was sent to the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar by order of 17-4-1996 to take action in the matter and that since action had been taken by the District Collector, the matter was closed by the Lok Ayukta on 12-6-1996. It is in this context that the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner was condemned unheard, was never given any opportunity and that the respondent No. 1 did not follow the mandatory procedure of the Andhra Pradesh Lok Ayukta & Upa-Lok Ayukta Act, 1983 (Act No. 11 of 1983), hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. Another submission urged by the learned counsel is of the petitioner being outside the ambit of the proceedings under the Act as he is not an officer within the meaning of Section 2(i) as the minimum scale of pay of the post he holds is less than Rs. 1,150/-. Even though such contention has been raised, yet the learned counsel has not placed any material before us and there is even no affidavit as to the minimum scale of the post he occupies and hence we are not in a position to hold him to be not an officer as defined in the Act. We consequently proceed on the footing of him being a person to whom the Act applies.
4. Section 7(2) of the Act enables the Upa-Lok Ayukta to investigate any action taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant, other than those referred to in Section 7(1), in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or even if no complaint is made, where the Upa-Lok Ayukta is of the opinion that such action could have been the subject of an allegation. While this is the power of the Upa-Lok Ayukta, powers of Lok Ayukta to investigate an action is as under Section 7(1) of the Act. Under the sub-section, the Lok Ayukta may investigate any action of a public servant belonging to such class or section of public servants, notified in that behalf. Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the (sic) gives overriding power to the Lok Ayukta, to investigate, for reasons to be recorded in writing, any allegation in respect of an action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Upa-Lok Ayukta, whether or not any complaint had been made to the Ayukta in respect of such action. Thus, if the Lok Ayukta purports to make investigation into action of a person which the Upa-Lok Ayukta has the jurisdiction to investigate, he can only proceed in the matter if he records the reasons therefor in writing.
5. Section 7 of the Act makes it clear that the investigation contemplated is only of an “action”. “Action” has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act as “action taken by a public servant in the discharge of his functions as such public servant, by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner, and includes any omission and commission in connection with or arising out of such action; and all other expressions connecting action shall be construed accordingly”. It is clear that ‘action’ contemplates a specified act to have been committed warranting investigation. Of course, a specified act may also include series of acts, but it is clear that “action” does not mean a complaint in a general way but must refer to some specific event about which the allegation is made or alleged.
6. Section 7 of the Act further makes it clear that what is to be investigated is an allegation in respect of an action whether or not a complaint is made of such allegation. “Allegation” is defined in Section 2(b) of the Act as fellows:
“(b) “allegation” in relation to a public servant means any 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 undueharm or hardship to any other person;
(ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by improper or corrupt motive and thereby caused loss to the State or any member or section of the public; or (iii) is guilty of corruption, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such Public servant.”
A reading of the definition makes it further clear that the allegation has to be about some particular act which may be either a commission or omission but never a vague submission or a generalised one. Section 9 of the Act prescribes the manner in which the complaint are made saying that every complaint shall be made in such form and shall be accompanied by such affidavits as may be prescribed. The complaint has to relate, under the section, to an allegation in respect of any action. The procedure as outline in Section 10 of-the Act stipulates a preliminary investigation by the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Aykta to arrive at the conclusion of the necessity to conduct an investigation under the Act. Section 10(2)(a) of the Act provides that the preliminary verification is to be conducted in private and that particularly the identity of the complainant and the public servant to be affected by the preliminary verification is not to be disclosed. After making the preliminary verification if the complaint is accepted for investigation, the procedure for making the investigation is to be followed by forwarding a copy of the complaint, or when there is no complaint and it is a suo motu action, a statement of the grounds for initiation of the action to the public servant concerned for his comments. Section 11 of the Act also vests in the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta the power, inter alia, to record evidence in connection with the investigation. Another rider to the entertainment of the complaint is a bar provided under Section 8(2) of the Act directing no complaint to be entertained after six years from the date of the action complained against. That only fortifies the conclusion that the investigation contemplated under the Act is only of a specific complaint, or even suo motu, of an allegation in respect of any particular action of the officer complained against.
7. The consequences of an investigation under the Act by either the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta may be grossly adverse to the public servant concerned. Section 12(2) of the Act makes the provision that when a report is made by the Lok Ayukta under Section 12(1) of the Act the competent authority is to examine the report and wi thou tany further inquiry, take action on the basis of the recommendation and intimate within three months the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. If the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta is not satisfied on the action taken or to be taken and thinks that the case so deserves, he may make a special report to the Governor. The scheme of the Act is thus that once an enquiry has been held by the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta with opportunity afforded to the person concerned and a recommendation is made against him to the competent authority, that authority is obliged to take action on the report as recommended or otherwise as he thinks fit but that no further enquiry is to be held in the matter. Thus the public servant affected has no opportunity to represent before the competent authority and the competent authority is under a statutory duty to comply with the recommendation unless it thinks otherwise, but even where the recommendation is not acted upon, the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta may follow up their recommendation with a report to the Governor. It is well known that the Governor may always call upon the Government seeking explanations for any action on its part and usually the views expressed by the Governor are entitled to the greatest weight by the Government.
8. It is in this background that we have to examine the orders passed against the petitioner. As it appears from the facts of the case and the counter-affidavit, no preliminary verification was made on the complaint. No investigation was also taken up. The petitioner was not noticed nor the copy of the complaint was forwarded to him. He had no opportunity to disprove the complaint and deny the averments made therein against him. The opinion was formed only on the basis of the complaint, against the petitioner and the District Collector was right (sic. straight-) away advised to transfer him to a far off place. The procedure adopted was not only against the principles of natural justice but was not even warranted by the provisions of the Act. The order does not disclose as to whether the complaint was in time and as to whether it was in respect of any specific action taken by the petitioner and what was the specific allegation against him. It does not appear from the order whether the petitioner had abused his office and position to obtain gain or favour to himself or to any other person or caused any undue hardship or harm to any other person or that he was actuated in the discharge of his function as a public servant by improper or corrupt motives and had thereby caused loss to the State or any member or section of the public or was guilty of corruption or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant. Such facts are to be found against the public servant by investigation which includes affording of an opportunity to him to lead evidence and to rebut it. No ex parte opinion can be formed by the Lok Ayukta without giving opportunity and without following the procedure to the public servant concerned. It appears from the counter-affidavit a stand to have been taken that the complaint received against tine petitioner was merely sent to the District Collector to take action and that since action had been taken, the matter was directed to be closed by order of 12-6-1996. We are afraid such a plea is not available since the order passed on 17-4-1996 was not merely a request to the District Collector to take action. Specific view was expressed in the order that the officer should be transferred to a distant far away place as it appeared to the Lok Ayukta that the petitioner had developed deep roots and vested interests in Shadnagar Mandal by working for too long a period in that area. Not only that, the District Collector was also directed to inform of the action taken by the date fixed viz., 12-6-1996. It can hardly be doubted that the order was intended asa direction to take action against the public servant concerned. Even a request by a high authority like the Lok Ayukta would almost always be regarded as a command only and hence such high authorities must desist from making any “light hearted requests”, as ordinarily their such request is to invoke greatest respect from other authorities of the State and would be treated as a command. Even the order of 12-6-1996 shows the respondent No. 1 to have been alive to the facts stated in the complaint and justified the order stating that the District Collector had done the right thing to transfer him to a distant place.
9. In view of all such considerations, which we must say we have done with the utmost circumspection in view of the very high office held by respondent No. 1, the orders passed on both the dates 17-4-1996 and 12-6-1996 are to be quashed and we order accordingly.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. We however make no order as to costs.