JUDGMENT
B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution at the instance of the State of Kerala and its officers impugns an ‘order’ of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 9th October, 2001 in Complaint No. 546 of 2001 before him.
2. It is necessary to recite some factual background in order to appreciate the grievance that had arisen before the Lok Ayukta, the manner in which the Lok Ayukta dealt with it and the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)
3. Prior to 15.11.1998, an Act by name Kerala Public Men’s Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1987 was in force in the State of Kerala. The main object of this Act was elimination of corruption in public offices. With this in mind, the Act provided an elaborate machinery to investigate and enquire into such cases. That corruption in public office or amongst public men is becoming more and more rampant is a fact of which judicial notice can be taken. That it requires effective measures to combat the evil, the Legislature realised, and enacted the present Act to deal with the evil of corruption.
4. The Act was put on the statute book “to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for making enquiries into any action (including any omission and commission in connection with or arising out of such action) relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India taken by or on behalf of the Government of Kerala or certain public authorities in the State of Kerala in certain cases and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto”, as stated in the Preamble to the Act. In order to understand the scheme of the Act, it is necessary to refer to some of the salient provisions of the Act.
(a) Under the defining Section 2, the expressions ‘action’, ‘allegation’, ‘grievance’ and ‘mal administration’ are respectively defined in Sub-sections (a), (b), (h) and (k) as under:
“(a) ‘action’ means any action including administrative action taken by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes wilful failure or omission to act and all other expressions relating to such action shall be construed accordingly.
(b) ‘allegation’, in relation to a public servant, means any affirmation that such public servant,-
(i) has abused his position as such public servant 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 his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives; or (iii) is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant, (h) 'grievance' means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of mal-administration; (k) 'mal-administration' means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where- (i) such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action in unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or (ii) there has been wilful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay".
(b) Section 7 of the Act provides for matters which are to be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayuktas. Sub-section (1) empowers the Lok Ayukta and one of the Upa Lok Ayuktas to investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific approval of the Chief Minister, ora Minister, or a Member of the State Legislature, or a Secretary, or an office bearer of a political party at the State level, or an officer referred to in Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (d) of Section 2, where a complaint involving a ‘grievance’ or an ‘allegation’ is made in respect of such action. In case of difference of opinion between the Lok Ayukta and the Upa Lok Ayukta, the action is required to be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and both the Upa Lok Ayuktas together and the decision of the majority therein will prevail. Sub-section (2) empowers the Upa Lok Ayukta to investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant other than the ones referred to in Sub-section (1) in a case where the complaint involved a ‘grievance’ or an ‘allegation’. Under Sub-section (3) the Lok Ayukta or an Upa Lok Ayukta could investigate any action taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public servant, if referred to him by the Government. There is provision for assignment of the work to the Upa Lok Ayukta by the Lok Ayukta and Sub-section (7) provides that the term Lok Ayukta whenever used in the Act would also refer to one or both of the Upa Lok Ayuktas.
(c) Section 8 enumerates certain matters which are not subject to investigation by the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta. They are prohibited from conducting any investigation under the Act in a case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action which relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. The Second Schedule to the Act lists out a number of matters which are taken out of the purview of investigation by the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta. For the purpose of the present Writ Petition, it suffices to point out that any action relating to claim for pension, gratuity, provident fund or any claim which arises on retirement, removal or termination of service is expected from the bar of jurisdiction. In other words, complaints with regard to such matters are capable of being investigated by the Lok Ayukta and/or Upa Lok Ayukta.
(d) Section 9 provides that any person may make a complaint in the prescribed form to the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta supported by an affidavit. It also lays down the procedure for entertaining the complaint and taking follow up action.
(e) Section 10 gives the power of issuing search warrants to the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta which would enable him to conduct an investigation into the complaint entertained by him effectively.
(f) Section 11 empowers the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta “for the purpose of any investigation” to call upon a public servant or any other person, who is able to furnish information or produce documents relevant to the investigation, to furnish such information or produce such document, and also invests him in the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with regard to the following matters:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(g) By Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Act, the proceeding before the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta is deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
(h) Section 12 of the Act is the most important Section which deals with the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta with regard to a complaint entertained by him. Section 12 reads as under:
“12. Reports of Lok Ayukta etc.- (1) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving grievance has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa Lok Ayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time, as may be specified in the report and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report.
(2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under Sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated, as the case may be, to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa Lok Ayukta the action taken on the report.
(3) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving an allegation has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated, either wholly or partly, he shall, by report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report.
(4) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under Sub-section (3) and, within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to 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.
(5) If the Lok Ayukta or the UpaLok Ayukta is satisfied with the action taken orproposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in Sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case, under intimation 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 competent authority concerned and the complainant.
(6) The Lok Ayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions as well as the functions of the Upa Lok Ayukta, to the Governor. (7) On receipt of the 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 the Legislative Assembly. (8) The Lok Ayukta or an Upa Lok Ayuktamay, at his discretion, make available, from time to time, the substance of 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."
5. An analysis of Section 12 of the Act suggests that the complaint made before the Lok Ayukta (for convenience, in our discussion, both Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta are described as Lok Ayukta) could be of two types, namely, (i) investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving a ‘grievance’ is made and (ii) investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving an ‘allegation’ is made. Broadly speaking, a ‘grievance’ refers to a complaint which affects only an individual inasmuch as an individual has been subjected to injustice on account of negligence, act of omission or commission, or delay on the part of a public authority. ‘Allegation’ refers to far more serious things like a complaint arising out of any act of omission, or commission or delay on the part of a public authority, which is actuated by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives, or is intended to cause gain to the public authority or to any other person, or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person, with regard to an individual’s grievance which does not have far reaching consequence, the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta is different and consequences of his
action, are also different as compared to the jurisdiction and consequences of the action of Lok Ayukta where the complaint has wider ramifications. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, if the Lok Ayukta is investigating only a complaint pertaining to any action involving a ‘grievance’, after investigation the Lok Ayukta is required to make a report in writing recommending to the competent authority that injustice or hardship as complained of has occurred and that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as contained in the report and shall also intimate the complainant of having made such a report. When such a report is received by the competent authority to whom the report is sent under Sub-section (1), he is required to intimate the Lok Ayukta within one month of the period specified in the report, the action taken on the report. Under Sub-section (5), if the Lok Ayukta 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 intimation 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 competent authority concerned and the complainant. Under Sub-section (6), the Lok Ayukta is required to present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions and also the functions of the Upa Lok Ayukta to the Governor. Sub-section (7) of Section 12 requires such a special report or the annual consolidated report together with an explanatory memorandum to be placed before the Legislative Assembly by the Governor. In our view, with regard to a complaint involving a “grievance”, the Lok Ayukta does not have any adjudicatory power, nor is he empowered to make any binding order which is enforceable as against a public servant whose action is under investigation, or the competent authority or the State Government. His role is confined to investigating the grievance, to satisfy himself as to its correctness, and thereafter recommending the remedial measures to the competent authority. The competent authority, normally, is expected to attach due importance to such recommendation made by the Lok Ayukta, albeit, it may not be bound by the recommendation. One expects, therefore, such recommendation to be implemented by the competent authority within the time stipulated by the Lok Ayukta. However, there may be occasions when the competent authority may, for good reasons, disagree with the recommendations of the Lok Ayukta. In such cases, it would be difficult to hold that the competent authority would be bound by the recommendations of the Lok Ayukta. All that the Lok Ayukta may do then is to make a special report to the Governor, which the Governor is obliged under Sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Act to place before the Legislative Assembly. The role of the Lok Ayukta then becomes one of an investigator, who brings the facts to the notice of the Legislative Assembly, so that there may be public debate thereupon. Barring this role, we do not see any power given to the Lok Ayukta under the Act to adjudicate a dispute which enables him to make an order of a binding nature in complaints involving a ‘grievance’.
6. With regard to an investigation made into a complaint involving an ‘allegation’, the Lok Ayukta’s function is slightly different. When such a complaint is made, the Lok Ayukta is required to make an investigation and, if the allegation is substantiated fully or partly, communicate his findings and recommendations to the competent authority/Government by a report accompanied by all relevant materials. On receipt of such a report, the competent authority shall intimate within three months the Lok Ayukta as to the action taken or proposed to be taken. If the Lok Ayukta is not satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings, he has to follow the same procedure of making a special report to the Governor; such a report has to be ultimately laid on the floor of the Legislative Assembly by the Governor together with a memorandum of explanation.
7. Section 14 of the Act reads as under:
“14. Public servant to vacate office if directed by Lok Ayukta etc.-
(1) Where, after investigation into a complaint, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa Lok Ayukta is satisfied that the complaint involving an allegation against the public servant is substantiated and that the public servant concerned should not continue to hold the post held by him, the Lok Ayukta or the Upa Lok Ayukta, as the case may be, shall make a declaration to that effect in his report under Sub-section (3) of Section 12. Where the competent authority is the Governor, the Government of Keralaor the Chief Minister, he or it shall accept the declaration. In other cases, the competent authority concerned shall send a copy of such report to the Government, which shall accept the declaration.
(2) When the declaration so made is accepted the fact of such acceptance shall immediately be intimated by registered post, by the Governor, the Government or the Chief Minister, if any of them is the competent authority and the Government, in other cases and then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, order, notification, rule or contract of appointment, the public servant concerned shall, with effect from the date of intimation of such acceptance or deemed acceptance of the declaration-
(i) if he is the Chief Minister or a Minister, resign his office of Chief Minister or Minister, as the case may be; (ii) if he is a public servant falling under items (v) and (vi), but not falling under items (iv) and (vii) of Clause (o) of Section 12, be deemed to have vacated his office; and (iii) if he is a public servant falling under items (iv) and (vii) of Clause (o) of Section 12, be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority and the appointing authority shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with the rules applicable to such public servant; Provided that if the public servant is a member of an All India Service and defined in Section 2 of the All India Services Act, 1951 (Central Act 61 of 1951) the Government shall take action to keep him under suspension and initiate appropriate action, in accordance with the rules or regulations applicable to his service".
This section gives substantive power to the Lok Ayukta, which provides for drastic consequences. Where, after investigation into a complaint, the Lok Ayukta is satisfied that a complaint involving an ‘allegation’ against a public servant is substantiated and that such a public servant should not hold the post held by him, he is empowered to make a declaration to that effect in his report under Sub-section (3) of Section 12. Where the competent authority is the Governor, the State Government or the Chief Minister, such a declaration shall be accepted by the competent authority. In other cases, the competent authority shall sent the report to the Government, which shall accept the declaration. Where the declaration is accepted, the competent authority or the Government is required to intimate the acceptance of .the declaration by registered post under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. When this happens, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, order, notification, rule or contract of appointment, the public servant concerned shall be deemed to have vacated his office or deemed to have been placed under suspension depending upon the type of the public servant. In the case of Chief Minister or Minister, he shall resign his office from the date of acceptance of such intimation. This, according to us, is the cutting edge of Lok Ayukta’s power. The Lok Ayukta has also the power under Section 15 of the Act of initiating prosecution, with the prior sanction of the appropriate authority where sanction is required. Section 18 of the Act provides that, whoever intentionally insults or causes any interruption to the proceedings of the Lok Ayukta, or brings it into disrepute is liable to be convicted and punished with simple imprisonment for a term of not less than six months extending upto one year, or with fine or both. Section 19 of the Act provides that Lok Ayukta shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, power and authority in respect of contempt of itself, as the High Court has and may exercise, and for this purpose the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall have effect subject to the modification that the reference therein made to the High Court shall be construed to be reference therein made to the Lok Ayukta. Section 24 of the Act puts beyond the purview of the Lok Ayukta’s power certain action which are taken with the approval of the certain public officers as specified in Clauses (a) to (j).
8. A survey of the relevant provisions leads us to the conclusion that, barring the area of investigation of a complaint involving “allegation”, which in other words means, a complaint made with regard to corruption, improper motives, nepotism, favouritism etc., as defined in the expression ‘allegation’ in Section 2(b) and covered by Section 14 of the Act, the Lok Ayukta has neither any adjudicatory power nor the power to enforce his recommendation or finding. In fact, his role is confined to making a report or recommendation. He has no power of execution of his orders. In fact, it would be inappropriate to call the report/recommendation made by the Lok Ayukta as an “Order”. Though the Lok Ayukta has been invested with certain powers of the Civil Court for the purpose of enabling him to conduct the investigation with greater efficacy, we do not think that thereby the Lok Ayukta can be equated to a court. Nor do we think that
investing of the power to punish for contempt under Section 19 of the Act, makes any difference to the situation. Section 19 of the Act empowers initiation of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is trite law that, there cannot be a contempt of court if the court does not make an enforceable order. It is only when a binding order, which is executable, is made and the party who is required to implement it either fails or refuses to do so, that contempt can be said to have arisen. Unless there is a provision to make such an order, the power under the Contempt of Courts Act as invested in the Lok Ayukta by Section 19 of the Act would make no difference.
9. The only area in which such a power can legitimately operate is the area covered by Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Act. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 14, when a declaration is made that a public servant is not to hold the office is made by the Lok Ayukta in his report, the competent authority “shall accept” the declaration. Under Sub-section 2 of Section 14, the fact of acceptance of the declaration shall immediately be intimated by the competent authority and from the date of intimation of such acceptance of the declaration, the public servant shall vacate or be suspended or resign his office. These are the two obligations of the competent authority with regard to the report made by the Lok Ayukta under Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 is sui generis and differs from the proceedings under Section 12. What happens if the obligations cast under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Act are not discharged by the competent authority without sufficient grounds? In such a case, the power of the Lok Ayukta under Section 19 of the Act read with the provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act may come into play. The Lok Ayukta can exercise the power of punishing for contempt to enforce the acceptance of intimation made under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 14 by the authorities concerned. Barring this limited area, we do not see any other area in which the power to punish for contempt invested in the Lok Ayukta by reason of Section 19 of the Act could come into play.
10. Our views with regard to the jurisdictional aspect of the Lok Ayukta find support from extrinsic evidence also. The learned Government Pleader brought to our attention the Legislative Assembly debates for the period from 2nd January, 1999 to 1st March 1999. At pages 377 to 447 are reported the debates which took place while the Lok Ayukta Bill was being moved in the Legislative Assembly. Speeches made by the members moving amendments suggest that, in their view, the Lok Ayukta did not have the power of issuing a direction to the public officers and such a provision was required to be made by an amendment in the bill before it was adopted. This was categorically rejected by the House. Secondly, we find that the statement of objects and reasons attached to the Bill published in Kerala Gazette No. 163, Vol. 44, dated 25th January, 1999 reads as under:
“In pursuance of the declared policy of the State Government to eliminate corruption in public service, it has become necessary to strengthen the existing vigilance machinery in the State. Government considered that the Kerala Public Men’s Corruption (Investigations and
Inquiries) Act, 1987 in force in the State, was not sufficient to prevent effectively the corruption among public servants. Government considered it necessary to widen the ambit of the legislation by including all the Government servants, the members and the person in service of the local authority, statutory and non-statutory bodies and co-operative societies within the purview of the same. Therefore, it has been decided to bring forth a comprehensive legislation for the effective inquiry and investigation of complaints against public servants and matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto.”
Finally, the speech of the Minister who moved the Bill is also illuminative. He stated that the Act was intended to eliminate corruption from public life. A conspectus of the extrinsic evidence also supports our view that Lok Ayukta is given special powers while dealing with matters of corruption, but was not intended to be an alternative to or to supplant the court when it comes to claims of individuals.
11. Though the facts of the petition before us fall within a limited compass, and as such could be disposed of by a limited order, we have elaborated the jurisdictional aspects of the Lok Ayukta under the Act, as several petitions are coming up before us questioning the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta.
12. Now the factual matrix in which the Original Petition has arisen:
The respondent was working as a Junior Superintendent in the District Treasury at Ernakulam and retired on superannuation on 31.12.1997. On 22.9.1997, he made a representation to the Director of Treasuries, Trivandrum requesting for fixation of his pay in the revised scale. There was some time lag in the fixation of the pay of the respondent. He, therefore, filed O.P. No. 21713 of 2000 before this Court. This Original Petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 1st August 2000 directing the Director of Treasuries to consider and pass orders on the representation made by the respondent herein with regard to the fixation of his pay in the revised scale. By a Government Order dated 25th November, 1998, the Government of Kerala accepted the Pay Revision Committee’s Report and gave detailed guidelines for revision of scales applicable to Government Servants with effect from 1st March, 1997. The rules for fixation of pay in the revised scale are given in Annexure III to the Government Order. Under the guidelines, the employees were given the option of continuing in the old unrevised pay scale or opting for revised scale. Such exercise of option had to be given in writing within a period of six months from the date of revising the pay scale, ie., within six months from 25.11.1998, the date of the Government Order. It is not in dispute that such option was exercised by the respondent to come over to the revised pay scale on 23.4.1999, which was the last date. Though the revised pay scales were to be effective from 1.3.1997, since the Government Order was issued only on 25.11.1998, the implementation of revised pay scales could not have been made earlier in the case of the respondent since his option was exercised on 23.4.1999. Further,
because of the direction made by this Court in O.P. No. 21713 of 2000, the Service Book of the respondent had been called by the Director of Treasuries, and the Director of Treasuries disposed of the representation by an order made on 6th October, 2000. The Service Book of the respondent was sent back to the District Treasury only on 20.1.2001. On 24th January, 2001, his pay was revised and pensionary benefits accruing as a result of 1997 Pay Revision was sent by order made on the same day. Finally, the amount due to the respondent was disbursed on 14th March, 2001.
13. The respondent filed Complaint No. 546 of 2001 before the Lok Ayukta complaining that there was undue and inordinate delay in the disbursement of pension, D.C.R.G., arrears of pension, and pay revision arrears. He, therefore, claimed interest on such delayed disbursement. It was this complaint which was entertained by the Lok Ayukta. By the impugned order at Ext. P5 dated 9th October, 2001, the Lok Ayukta disposed of the complaint by taking the view that payments claimed by the respondent had been admitted by the District Treasury Officer in his reply statement. Therefrom, the Lok Ayukta jumped to the conclusion that there was undue delay in disbursing retiral benefits and, passed the following order.
“Therefore, the balance amount due under the Pension Term Deposit Certificate will have to be paid to the complainant. In view of the delay in disbursing retiral benefits, the complainant is entitled to interest at 10% p.a. on the Gratuity amount of Rs. 78,840/- with effect from 1.4.1998 to 1.3.2001, on the arrears of pension of Rs. 20,355/- from 1.4.1998 to 1.3.2001, arrears of revised pay of Rs. 12,939/- till the date of payment on 14.3.2001, which was due for the period from 1.3.1999 to 31.12.1997”.
The Lok Ayukta also held that the respondent was not entitled to interest on the commuted value of pension because, till the pension was commuted, he was drawing the full pension. A direction was made that the amounts shall be paid within three months with liberty reserved in the Government to take proper action against officers responsible for the delay and for recovery of the amount of loss caused to the Government.
14. Apart from the fact that the impugned order appears to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta, we find the order even otherwise unsustainable. We have not been shown any provision under which interest becomes automatically payable for delayed payments. May be, as an equitable principle, the person entitled to disbursement of money on a particular date should be compensated by way of interest for delayed payment, when there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The question, however, is, is the Lok Ayukta empowered to pass such an order? In the first place, the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to make an adjudicatory ‘order’. Secondly, the power to direct payment of interest on amounts adjudicated and found to be payable must be found in a statute. Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code read with the Interest
Act/empowers the Civil Court to make an order awarding interest on delayed payments found due after adjudication. Inasmuch as the Lok Ayukta’s power is neither adjudicatory, nor is he empowered to make a binding order, that provision is of no avail. The only legitimate exercise of the Lok Ayukta on the complaint of the respondent could have been to see if, in equity, some compensation, by way of interest or otherwise, be paid to the respondent. This could have been done only upon a clear finding that there was unexplained delay in disbursement on account of default or negligence on the part of the concerned public servant/s in the discharge of duties. We find that the only reason given for directing payment of interest was that the claims had been admitted by the District Treasury Officer. There is no apportionment of the blame, which was vitally necessary if the equitable claim to interest or compensation was to be entertained. In the circumstances, we are of the view that, without making a finding that there was delay or default for no good reason on the part of the District Treasury Officer or any other public servant in making the payment of the terminal dues to the respondent, even the report or recommendation based on equity for payment of interest could not have been made by the Lok Ayukta.
15. A further question that has been raised is, whether in a matter of individual grievance of the nature ventilated by the respondent, is it the Lok Ayukta or the Upa Lok Ayukta who has to take cognizance for the purpose of investigation, finding or report. This is also a matter which needs to be examined in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. V.C. Kamalu and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2000 (2) KLJ 164. Though the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Dr. Vishwasrao Chudaman Patil v. Lok Ayukta, State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1985 Bombay 136, rendered under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta Act, 1971 was cited, we find that the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. V.C. Komalu and Ors. (supra) has disagreed with the view taken by the Bombay High Court on the ground that the provisions of the two Acts are not pari materia. We, therefore, rest our conclusions and the judgments on the construction of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, and the attendant circumstances to which we have referred.
16. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the order of the Lok Ayukta needs to be interfered with. We quash and set aside the impugned order of the Lok Ayukta. The complaint is revived on the file of the Lok Ayukta and shall be dealt with by the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta as may be decided in accordance, with Section 7 of the Act, in the light of the judgment in Dr. Kamalu and Ors. (supra), and disposed of in accordance with the law as laid down by us.