OFFICE OF THE ODISHA LOKAYUKTA v. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI & Ors.

the Lokayukta to utilize the services of any officer or organization or investigation agency of the Government and, in the circumstances, if the appellant in its judicious discretion and on the facts and circumstances of the case, conduct a preliminary inquiry through an agency of the Government of which reference has been made under Section 28 through the Directorate of Vigilance, Cuttack, there appears no legal infirmity being committed by the appellant in the decision-making process in conducting a preliminary inquiry whichwas within the scope and ambit of Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 and a manifest error was committed by the Division Bench of the High Court while setting aside the order of the appellant dated 11th December, 2020 to conduct an inquiry against respondent no.1. [Para 30][573-F-H; 574-A]

1.4 Although this Court may not appreciate the action of the appellant in taking further steps when there was stay of the order impugned passed by this Court, but at the same time, an opportunity was granted to the respondents as well to justify if the action taken by the appellant is not in conformity with the mandate of the Act, 2014, but from the written submissions placed before this Court, no valid objection was found to have been raised by the respondents which may call upon this Court to interfere in furtherance of the action being taken by the appellant after the preliminary inquiry report was submitted pursuant to order dated 11th December, 2020.[Para 33][574-D-F]

1.5 The rule against bias is an essential component of modern administrative law. The rule against bias ensures a fair procedure by excluding decision-makers who are tainted by bias. Under the rule, actual bias is disqualifying even though it is prohibitively difficult to establish. The basic principle underlying the time-tested rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appears to be done. In the instant case, the complaint was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Directorate of Vigilance, who is, directly or indirectly, not concerned with the complaint, he can be said to be an informant to the office of the appellant and that apart, a preliminary inquiry was conducted independently by a senior officer of the Directorate of Vigilance, Additional Superintendent of Police who submitted A B C D E F G H OFFICE OF THE ODISHA LOKAYUKTA v. DR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI 563 his report of the preliminary inquiry. The question of bias in the instant facts and circumstances does not arise at all. Further, if the order of the appellant directing the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct the preliminary inquiry in exercise of power under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 has been set aside by the High Court, obviously, the appellant is a person aggrieved and can certainly question the legality/validity of the judgment of the High Court impugned by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The judgment of the High Court and the review order are set aside.[Paras 35, 37, 42 and 43][575- C; 578-D-F; 581-B-D]