C. RANGASWAMAIAH AND ORS.versusKARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

                      C. RANGASWAMAIAH AND ORS.                                        A
                                 v.
                    KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

                                   JULY 21, 1998

          [K. VENKATASWAMI AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]                                 B

          Service Law :

          Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 : Section 15.
                                                                                       c
           Deputation-Police Officers sent on-Status of-Held : A person
    continues to remain an employee of the lending authority with which the
    relationship of master and servant remains until it is terminated-Hence,
    police officers sent on deputation to Lokayukta by State Government continue
    to remain as public servants of the State Government as long as they are not
    absorbed in the Lokayukta.                                                   D
          Deputation-Additional functions-Entrustment of-By lending
    authority--Police officers of the State sent on deputation to Lokayukta were
    entrusted with additional functions under S. 17 of the Prevention ofCo"uption
    Act, 1988-Legality of-Held : Normally, leading authority should not entrust        E
    extra duties to its employees sent on deputation-But such extra duties are
    legal if they are entrusted by virtue of statutory powers and not objected to
    by the borrowing authority-Hence, entrustment of additional functions to
    police officers being under statutory powers is within the jurisdiction of State
    Government-Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988, S.17.
                                                                                       F
          Deputation--Employees sent on-To Lokayukta -Extra work-
    Entrustment of-By leading authority-Validity of-Held: State Government
    should inform the Lokayukta of its desire to entrust extra· work to its employees
    sent on deputation-But for good reasons if the Lokayukta objects to such
    extra work but if State Governmef!t insists on such entrustment the Lokayukta G
    can direct the employees on deputation not to take up such extra work-But
    once the Lokayukta has not objected to such entrustment of work, it should
    not raise objection when these employees are halfway through the extra
    work-However, the public servants against whom investigations were going
    on have no right to raise such objection-Karna/aka Lokayukta (Cadre,
    Recruitment and Conditions of Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules H
                                          837
•
     838                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A    1988, R. 3 and Sch I and fl.                                                                '
                                                                                       "'
           Posts-{;reation of-By administrative order-Validity-New post of
     Director General of Police, Lokayukta created by administrative order without ·
     amending the recruitment Rules to include the said post in the Lokayukta
     cadre-Held : Still the said post created in the Lokayukta Police Wing
B'   intended to be and must be treated as part of the staff of the Lokayukta in
     the Police Wing-Therefore, while ihe Police Wing in the Lokayukta is under
     the general overall control of the Director General of Police, still the staff             ..
     and the Director General himself are under the administrative and disciplinary         f
     control of the Lokayukta.

c          The State Government entrusted the functions of investigation under
     Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to the Police officers
     of the State on deputation with the Lokayukta under Section 15(1) of the
     Karnataka State Lokayukta Act, 1984. The State Government also created
     the post of Director General of Police by an Administrative order without
     including the said post in the Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadre, Recruitment
D    and Conditions of Service of the Officers and the Employees) Rules, 1988.
     The petitioners, against whom investigation was going on, filed a writ petition
     before the High Court challenging the aforesaid directions, which was
     dismissed. Hence this Special leave Petition.
           The following points arose before this Court:
E
           (l) Was it permissible for the State Government to create the post of
     Director General of Police, Lokayukta by way of an administrative order
     though the said post was not included in the relevant rules of recruitment
     of the staff of the Lokayukta? If permissible can it be said that the said
     officer was independent and outside the administrative and disciplinary control
F    of the Lokayukta?
           (2) Is the entrustment offunctions under the Prevention of Corruption
     Act, 1988 by the Government to the police officers on deputation with the
     Lokayukta without jurisdiction?
          (3) In what manner can the provisions of Section 17 of the Prevention
G
     of Corruption Act, 1988 anil Section 15 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,
     1984 be harmonised?
                                                                                                ,_
                                                                                            r
          ( 4) rs the further investigation in the present cases to be continued by
     the police officers on deputation to the Lokayukta?

H          Dismissing the Petition, this Court

                                                                                       •
                     C.RANGASWAMAIAHv.KARNATAKALOKAYUKTA                        839
     A         HELD: 1.1 The police officers of the State on deputation continue to A
         remain as public servants in-the service of the State Government, as long
         as they are not absorbed in the Lokayukta. The legal position is absolutely
         unassailable because the State has merely lent the services of these officers
         to the Lokayukta and the officers continue to be employees of the State. In
         spite of the deputation of these officers with the Lokayukta the relationship
         of master and servant between the State and these officers does not stand B
         terminated. (850-E-F)

               State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, (1997) 6SSC 372, relied on.

                1.2. Normally, in respect of officers sent on deputation by the State to
         another authority, the leading authority should not, after deputation of its C
         officers, entrust extra duties concerning the s2id lending authority to such
         officers without the consent of the borrowing authority. If, however, such
         action is taken by the lending authority by virtue of statutory powers and
         such a course is not objected to by the borrowing authority, it cannot be said
         that the entrustment is without jurisdiction. From a jurisdictional angle, the
         entrustment being under statutory powers of the Sate traceable to Section D
         17 of the P~evention of Corruption Act, 1988 the same cannot be said to be
         outside the jurisdiction the State Government. May be, if it is done without
         consulting the Lokayukta and obtaining its consent, it can only be treated
         as an issue between the State and the Lokayukta and is none of the concern
         of those public servants against whom these police officers on deputation are E
         conducting the investigation. Such entrustment of duties has statutory
         backing and obviously also the tacit approval of the Lokayukta. Once there
         is such tacit approval of the Lokayukta, the writ petitioners cannot have any
         grievance that the Lokayukta ought not to have permitted such a course.
                                                                              [851-A-D)
>;            2.1. In order to harmonise the powers of the Government under the       F
         Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and of the Lokayukta under the Kamataka
         state lokayukta Act, 1984 it must be held that if the State Government wants
         to entrust such extra work to the officers on deputation with the Lokayukta,
         it can certainly inform the Lokayukta of its desire to do so. If the Lokayukta
         agrees to such entrustment, there will be no problem. But if for good reasons G
         the Lokayukta thinks that such entrustment of work by the State Government
         is likely to affect its functioning or is likely to affect its independence, it
         can certainly inform the State Government accordingly. In case the State
         Government does not accept the view point of the Lokayukta, then it will be
         open to the Lokayukta-Having regard to the need to preserve its
         independence and effective functioning to take action under Section 15(4) H
    840                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A   (read with Section 15(2) of the Lokayukta Act) and direct that these officers
    on deputation in its police wing will not take up any such work entrusted
    to them by the State Government. Of course, it is expected that the Sate
    Government and the Lokayukta will avoid any such unpleasant situations but
    will act reasonably in their respective spheres. [851-G-H)

B          2.2. But once the Lokayukta has, as in the present case, not objected-
    at the threshold - to such entrustment of work by the State Government to
    the officers on deputation, then it will not normally be reasonable for the
    Lokayukta to object to said entrustment when these officers are half-way
    through the extra work. Such withdrawal by the Lokayukta at a later stage
C   might create various administrative problems and will only help the public
    servants against whom investigation is being done to raise unnecessary
    legal issues. Of course, in the present case, it is not the Lokayukta which
    has raised any objection but it is the public servants - against whom the
    investigation is going on - who have raised objections. They cannot raise
    objections if the Lokayukta has not raised any objection at the threshold.
D   The above will take care of the independence and effective working of the
    Lokayukta and at the same time will enable the State if need be, to exercise
    its statutory powers under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
    -1988. [852-8-D)

          Institute of A.P. Lokayukta v. T. Ramasubba Reddy, [1997) 9 SCC 42,
E   relied on.

          Gokaraju Ranga Raju v. State of A.P., [1981) 3 SCC 132, referred to.

          3.1. Though the post of Director General of Pplice was created by an
    administrative order and the Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadre, Recruitment and
    Conditions of Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules, 1988 were not
F   amended to bring the said post into the cadre under the Lokayukta, still the
    said post created in the Lokayukta Police wing was intended to be and must
    be treated as a part of the staff of Lokayukta in the Police wing.[849-D-E)

          3.2. Therefore, while the Police wing in the Lokayukta is under the
G general and overall control of the Director General of Police, still, the staff
    and the Director General himself are under the administrative and
    disciplinary control of the Lokayukta. [849-G)

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave petition Nos.                  1

    8758-8764 of 1998.

H         From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.98 of the Kamataka High Court
           . • ANGASWAMAIAH v. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.)         841

    .   in W.P. No. 24215, 32653, 33388, 27056, 27361, 33852 and 4361of1998.              A
              Gopal Subramaniam and Ms. Kiran Suri for the Petitioners.

              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

              JAGANNADHA RAO, J. On the last day before summer vacation, B
        namely, 14. 5.I 998, we dismissed these Special Leave Petition at the stage of
        admission and stated that we shall pass a reasoned order later. We are
        passing that order now.

               These seven special leave petitions have been preferred against the
        common Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition Nos.24215/ C
        97, 32653/97, 33388/97, 27056197, 27361197, 33852197 and4361/98. The judgment,
        in fact, disposed of several other writ petitions also and in addition considered
        the correctness of the judgment dated 12.8.1997 of a learned Single Judge of
        that Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 17819 of 1994 against which Writ
        Appeals Nos. 5081197 and 5071/97 were respectively preferred by the petitioner D
        therein and the State of Karnataka.

               The point raised in these SLPs is whether the investigation under
        section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 entrusted by the State
        of Kamataka to the Police Officers of the State having the requisite rank could
        still be said to be vitiated because of the fact that the said officers were on   E
        deputation to the police wing of the Kamataka State Lokayukta at the relevant
        time?

               The facts of the case are as follows: The petitioners before us filed writ
        petitions contending that the police officers on deputation with the Lokayukta
        could not have been entrusted with the investigation under section 17 of the F
        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In writ petition 17819/94 filed earlier by

-       another public servant which went before a learned single Judge of that
        Court, the same questions were raised. A learned single Judge of that Court
        while however rejecting the contention of the Writ Petitioner in writ petition
        No. 17819/94 that the police officers sent on deputation to the Lokayukta to G
        'assist' the said authority under section 15(1) of the Karnataka State Lokayukta
        Act, 1984 would cease to be police officers for purposes of section 17 of the
        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, held that the petition was liable to be
        partly allowed on the basis of the following reasoning. The learned Judge
        held that in view of section 15(2) of the Lokayukta Act which required the
        staff of the Lokayukta to act without 'fear' in the discharge of their functions H
    842                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A and section 15(4) of the said Act- which vested 'administrative and disciplinary
  control' of the staff in the Lokayukta, -the independence of the Lokayukta as
  an autonomous body would be affected if the police officers on deputation
  with the Lokayukta were entrusted with functions of investigation under
  section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that, therefore, such
  officers should not have been asked to conduct any such investigation. The
B learned Single Judge, however, sustained the investigation already made, by
  invoking the de facto doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in Gokaraju
  Ranga Raju V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981] 3 sec 132. Question arose
  as to the position of the post of Director General of Police in the Lokayukta
  created w.e.f. 21.12.92 which post was however not included in the rules
C governing the Lokayukta and to the effect of another notification dated
  22.12.92 issued by the State Government under section 17 of the Prevention
  of Corruption Act, 1988 designating all the Inspectors of Police, Karnataka
  Lokayukta to be police officers for purposes of the proviso to section 17 of
  the said Act. The learned Judge held that the latter notification in so far as
  it placed the said officers under the 'general and overall control and supervision'
D of the Director General, Bureau of Investigation, Lokayukta, Bangalore -
  rather than under the Lokayukta - as was the position under an earlier
  notification dated 2.11.1992 which had vested such control and supervision
  in the Lokayukta -was bad inasmuch as it jeopardised the independence of
  the Lokayukta, particularly when the post of Director General of the Bureau
E of Investigation, Lokayukta was not included among the posts listed in the
  Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadre, Recruitment and Conditions of Service of the
  Officers and the Employees) Rules, 1988. The learned Judge also held that the
  notification dated 22.12.1992 mentioned above designating the Inspectors of
  Police who were on deputation in the Kamataka Lokayukta to be police
  officers under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that
F the notification dated 26.5.1986 issued under section 2(s) of the Crirr.inal
  procedure Code, 1973 whereby Offices of the Lokayukta throughout the State
   were declared as Police stations respect of jurisdiction mentioned against
   each of them - could not be of any help to the State inasmuch as those police
   officers on deputation in the police wing of the Lokayukta could not have
G been asked to undertake any functions other than those of 'assisting' the
   Lokayukta as specified in section 15(1) of the Lokayukta Act, 1984. In the
   result, the learned Single Judge directed that, from the stage at which the
   investigation stood under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as on the
   date of the Judgement, the Police Wing/Bureau of investigation of the
   Lokayukta 'shall cease' all investigations but that this would not, however,
H prevent the said agency from transferring the cases for farther investigation
    . ANGASWAMAIAH v. KARNA TAKA LOKA YUK TA [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 843

and appropriate action to any other agency competent to investigate the           A
same. So far as the investigation which was already made by the police
officers of the Bureau was concerned, - though it was sustained under the
de facto doctrine, - it was still observed that the same would be subject to
the right of the concerned public servants to prove that prejudice was caused
to them on account of the entrustment of the investigation to such officers
who were on deputation. The writ petition No. 17819of1994 was allowed to          B
the extent stated above.

      The said writ petition having been partly allowed as stated above - both
the petitioner therein and the State filed Writ Appeals as stated earlier. Other
officers like the petitioners in these SLPs who filed fresh writ petitions - had C
their writ petitions clubbed with the said Writ Appeals.

        The Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners
 as also the writ Appeal of the writ petitioner in writ petition 17819 of 1994 and
 allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the State. It held that even after deputation,
there could be a "dual" role on the part of the police officers in their functions, D
 namely, functions under the Lokayukta and functions in discharge of the
 duties entrusted to them by the State of Karnataka, under the Prevention of
 Corruption Act, 1988. It, however, held reversing the view of the learned
 Single Judge that the notification dated 22.12.1992 issued under section 17 of
 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 designating all Inspectors on deputation E
 in. the Lokayukta as officers competent for purposes of section 17 of that Act
and the notification dated 26.5.1986 issued under section 2(s) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure designating all offices of the Lokayukta in the State as
Police stations - indicated that these police officer's though on deputation,
were entrusted with these powers of investigation, by virtue of statutory
powers, The Division Bench further held that though the Director General of F
Police newly attached w.e.f. 21.11.92 to the Bureau of Investigation of Lokayukta
by way of an administrative order of the Government was to be in control and
supervision of the police staff in the Lokayukta and though the said post of
Director General of Police was not - by appropriate amendment of the
recruitment rules of the Lokayukta staff - included in the cadre of posts in
the police wing of the Lokayukta - still it had to be taken that the said Directot G
General of Police was under the administrative and disciplinary control of the
Lokayukta and therefore the above notification dated 22.12.1992 could not be
treated as invalid or as jeopardising the independence of the Lokayukta. It
also held that the appointment of the said Director General and the notification
placing the Police Officers of the Lokayukta uncjer his control did not amount H
    844                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (1998) 3 S.C.R.

A   to divesting the powers of the Lokayukta in relation to these police officers       •
    nor to vesting the said powers only in the Director General of Police. It
    observed that dual functions could be performed by these officers in relation
    to the two Acts, namely the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Lokayukta
    Act and such a situation of dual control could not be said to be alien to
    criminal jurisprudence concerning investigation of crimes. In other words,
B · these officers who were of the requisite rank as per section 17 of the Prevention
    of Corruption Act, 1988 could not be said to be incompetent to investigate
    into offences assigned to them under that Act by the competent authority by
    virtue of statutory powers under Section 17 thereof or to the extent not
    excluded by the Lokayukta. The Division Bench, therefore, held that the
C further investigation against the petitioners could be continued through the
    police officers on deputation with the Lokayukta.

         We have also to refer to an Office Memorandum dated 2.9.1997 issued
  by the Lokayukta after the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Lokayukta
  issued Office Memorandum dated 2.9.1997 to the effect that in view of the
D judgment in the writ petition, all police officers in charge of police stations
  of the Lokayukta, could take cognizance and investigate offences punishable
  under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the !PC but that keeping
  in view Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, they were to
  obtain necessary orders from the respective Superintendents of Police, attached
E to the Lokayukta - who in their tum would report to the Lokayukta or Upa
  Lokayukta, as the case may be - with reference to their respective jurisdictions
  through the Inspector General of Police (except in trap cases). The
  Memorandum stated that the report of the police officers should be submitted
  to the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta, as the case may be, through the !GP
   immediately after such action was taken in the proceedings. It further stated
F that the !GP would place the FIR, the evidence collected and the final
   investigation report before the Lokayukta and that before filing charge sheet
  for prosecution or filing closure reports, orders of the Lokayukta or Upa
   Lokayukta - as the case may be -would have to be obtained. The validity of
   this Memorandum, therefore, fell for consideration before the Division Bench
G in the light of the other findings given by the Division Bench reversing the
   opinion of the learned single Judge.

          In regard to the above Memorandum of the Lokayukta dated 2.9.97, the
    Division Bench held that it was issued by the Lokayukta only in view of the
    judgment of the learned Single Judge and Govt. notification dated 20.8.97, to
H   overcome the difficulties faced by the police officers in the Lokayukta. The
            C. RANGASWAMAIAH 1·. KARNATAKA LOKA YUKTA [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 845


 .. ...   Office Memorandum purported to have been issued under section 15(4) of the A
          Karnataka Lokayukta Act. The Bench held that the Lokayukta had no authority
          statutorily delegated to it to issue such an office Memorandum. The Bench
          held that, in the light of the views expressed in the judgment of the Division
          Bench that the Director General attached to the Lokayukta was to be trea\ed
          as under the administrative control of the Lokayukta, the memorandum had
          become 'redundant' and 'unworkable.' Even otherwise the Court would have B
          no hesitation to set aside the same on ground of want of jurisdiction or as
 ...      being in excess of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. The Division Bench, however,
  -;,     clarified that the setting aside of the said Memorandum did not mean that the
          Lokayukta had no administrative and disciplinary control over the police
          officers on deputation. It held that in case the Lokayukta directed a police      c
          officer 'not to proceed in relation to a case', such a police officer could not
          venture to initiate investigation. A direction not to go ahead with entire duties
          entrusted to him by the Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
          1988 could be given by the Lokayukta only under specified and exceptional
          circumstances such as - when there was "excess load of work" in the Lokayukta
          which might not consequently leave adequate time for investigation of offences D
          being investigated by the Lokayukta. These exceptions, the Bench held, were
          not exhaustive and there could well be other situations where the Lokayukta
          could direct its officers not to take up the extra work entrusted to them by
          the State under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Division Bench
          thus allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the State and dismissed the Writ E
          Appeal of the petitioner in W.P. 17819of1994 and dismissed the writ petitions
          filed by the petitioners before us.

                It was contended in these special leave petitions before us by the
          learned senior counsel for the petitioners Sri Gopal Subramanyam that the
~         Division Bench erred in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners,   F
          that the entire investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act so far
          conducted by the police officers of the Lokayukta must be treated as illegal
          and that the entrustment of the remaining investigation to these officers could
          not be permitted. In other words, it was contended that the entire proceedings
          must be quashed.
                                                                                            G
                Before giving our reasons for dismissal of these special leave petitions
          we may state that we are here conscious of the fact that the writ petitioner
q"'
          in writ petition No. 17819/1994 out of which the two writ appeals arose before
          the High Court is not before us. But inasmuch as the fresh writ petitions filed
          by the petitioners who are now before us have been disposed of by a H
    846                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A common judgment alongwith the writ appeals, it has not become possible to
    avoid consideration of the reasons given by the learned Single Ju'dge in writ
    petition No. 17819/1994.

          The following points arise for consideration:

B         (I) Was it permissible for the State Government to create the post of
    Director General of Police, Lokayukta by way of an administrative order of
    21.12.1992 though the said post was not included in the relevant rules of
    recruitment of the staff of the Lokayukta? If permissible, can it be said that
    the said officer was independent and outside the administrative and
    disciplinary control of the Lokayukta?
c
         (2) Is the entrustment of functions under the Prevention of Corruption
    Act, 1988 by the Government to the police officers on deputation with the
    Lokayukta without jurisdiction?

       (3) In what manner can the provisions of section 17 of the Prevention
D of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 15 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984
  be harmonised?

         (4) Is the further investigation in the present cases to be continued by
    the police officers on deputation to the Lokayukta?
E         Point 1:-

        At the outset, it is necessary to refer briefly to the provisions of the
  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and of the Karnataka State Lokayukta
  Act, 1984 in so far as they are relevant and to certain notifications adverted
F to by the parties before the High Court.
        Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 states that
  notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
  (Act 2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank (a) in the case of the Delhi
  Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police, (b) in the metropolitan
G area of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other
  metropolitan areas notified as such under sub-section (I) of Section 8 of the
  Code of Criminal Procedure, J973(Act 2 of 1924), of an Assistant Commissioner
  of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall, investigate any offence
  punishable under that Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or
  a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest without
H a warrant. The first proviso to Section 17 states that when a police officer of
 C. RANGASWAMA!AHv. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA[M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J]               847
a rank below the rank of an Inspector of police can take similar action. The       A
second proviso states that if the offence is one under clause (e) of sub-
section ( 1) of section 13 namely, dealing with possession of assets
disproportionate to the known sources of income of the public servant, then
such an offence shall not be investigated without the orders of a police officer
not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
                                                                                   B
     We shall next refer to Section 15 of the State Lokayukta Act, 1984,
which deals with the mode of recruitment of staff of the Lokayukta. Section
15 of the Act reads as follows:

        "Section 15: Staff of Lokayukta. etc.: (1) There shall be such officers
        and employees as may be prescribed to assist the Lokayukta and the         C
        Upa Lokayukta or the Upa Lokayukta in the discharge of their functions
        under this Act.

        (2) The categories recruitment and conditions of service of the officers
        and employees referred to in sub-section (I) including special
        conditions as may be necessary for enabling them to act without fear D
        in the discharge of their functions, shall be such as may be prescribed
        in consultation with the Lokayukta.

        (3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (I), the
        Lokayukta or an Upa Lokayukta may, for the purpose of conducting
        investigations under this Act utilise the services of                      E
             (a) any officer or investigating agency of the State Government;
        or

            (aa) any officer or investigating agency of the Central Government
        with the prior concurrence of the Central Government; or                   F
             (b) any other agency.

        (4) The officers and other employees referred to in sub-section (I)
        shall be under the administrative and disciplinary control of the
        Lokayukta:                                                          G
             Provided that when Lokayukta is. unable to discharge his functions
        owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the Upa Lokayukta or
        if there are more than one Upa Lokayukta or if there are more than one
        Upa Lokayukta, the senior among them may discharge the functions
        of the Lokayukta under this sub-section".                               H
    848                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A         It will be noticed from the above provisions that the staff of the
    Lokayukta is to "assist" the Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta in the discharge
    of their functions as stated in section 15(1) and that the staff is to function
    without "any fear" in the discharge of their duties as stated in section 15(2).
    The staff is to be under the administrative and disciplinary jurisdiction of the
B   Lokayukta as stated in section 15(4).

           Under the rule making power conferred on it by section 23 of the
    Lokayukta Act, 1984, the State of Karnataka has framed rules for recruitment
    of the staff in the Lokayukta called the Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadres,
    Recruitment and Conditions of Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules,
C   1988. Rule 3 thereof provides for the strength and composition of the staff
    of the Lokayukta and states that the staff shall be recruited as detailed in the
    First Schedule of the Rules. Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes the method of
    recruitment and the minimum qualifications therefor. The first Schedule divides
    the staff into three wings" (i) Administrative and Enquiry Wing (ii) Police
    Wing and (iii) General Wing. The number of posts in each wing is also
D   specified. So far as the Police Wing is concerned, it is to compris~ of one !GP,
    one Dy. IG, three Superintendents of Police, three non-JPS Superintendents
    of Police, eleven Dy. Superintendents of Police, apart from 24 Inspectors of
    Police and an equal number of Sub-Inspectors of Police besides Head.
    Constables and Drivers, etc. The Second Schedule to the Rules provides for
E   the method of recruitment, according to which so far as staff in the Police
    Wing of the Lokayukta is concerned, it has to be appointed by deputation
    from the Karnataka State Police Service. The only condition is that the
    Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police (except the
    Superintendents of Police) have to be JPS Officers.

F       We shall next refer to the relevant notifications which were referred to
  in the High Court. We have a notification dated 22.12.92 issued by the State
  Government under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
  (issued in modification of an earlier notification dated 2.11.1992) designating
  all Inspectors of Police on deputation with the Karnataka Lokayukta to be
G police officers for the purposes of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption
  Act, 1988 but subject to the "general and overall control and supervision" of
  the Director General, Bureau of Investigation, Lokayukta, Bangalore. Under
  the previous notification dated 2.11.1992. the said control and supervision of
  the police officers was vested with the Lokayukta. On 21.12.1992, the
  Government of Kamataka created a post of Director General, Bureau of
H Investigation, Lokayukta, in the rank of an Additional Director General of
               C RANGASWAMAIAH v. KARNATAKA LOKA YUKTA [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.l               849
... ..       Police and then issued the notification dated 22.12.1992 above referred to             A
             vesting the control of the police staff in the Lokayukta with the general and
             overall control of the said Director General of Police. There is also a notification
             dated 26.5.1986 issued under section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
             1973 declaring offices of the Lokayukta as police stations and authorising
             Inspectors of Police therein to conduct investigations under the Prevention
             of Corruption Act, 1988.
                                                                                                    B
                   The above are the relevant provisions of the Central and State Acts, the
 •
 ...         rules and notifications .

                    We may first deal ~ith the crucial question as to whether the Director
             General of Police in the Office of the Lokayukta who is to supervise the work          c
             of the police officers on deputation in the Lokayukta is independent of the
             Lokayukta and is out side the administrative and disciplinary control of the
             Lokayukta. We agree with the Division Bench when it took the view, -
             differing from the learned Single Judge, - that though the newly created post
             of Director General of Police in the Office of the Lokayukta was created on
                                                                                                    D
             21.12.1992 by an administrative order and the relevant recruitment rules of the
             staff of the Lokayukta were not amended to bring the said post into the cadre
             under the Lokayukta, still the said post created in the Lokayukta, Police Wing
             was intended to be and must be treated as part of the staff of Lokayukta in
             the police wing. It is well-settled that administrative orders even creating
             posts can be issued so long as they are not inconsistent with rules, that is           E
             to say, as long as there is no prohibition in the statutory rules for creation
             of such posts. The learned single Judge's view that the independence of the
             Lokayukta was under threat was mainly based upon his decision that the post
             of the Director General created on 21.12.1992 was outside the control of the
             Lokayukta. This view, in our opinion, is not correct for the reasons mentioned
#
    •        above .
                                                                                                    F

                    Therefore, while it is true that as per the notification dated 21.11.1992
             issued by the Government, the police wing in the Lokayukta is to be under
             the general and overall control cf the said Director General of Police, still, in
             our opinion, the said staff and, for that matter, the Director General himself
                                                                                               G
             are under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Lokayukta. This
             result even if it is not achieved by the express language of section 15(4) is
-"\.   ...   achieved by the very fact that the Director General's post is created in the
             office of the Lokayukta. By creating the said post of Director General of Police
             in the Office of the Lokayukta and keeping the police wing rherein under
             control and supervision of the said Director General, the State of Kamataka, H
    850                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A   in our opinion, did not intend to remove the police wing or the said Director
    General from the administrative and disciplinary jurisdiction of the Lokayukta
                                                                                       •
    nor did the State intend to interfere with the independent functioning of the
    Lokayukta and its police staff. The modification of the earlier notification
    dated 2.11.1992 was, in our opinion, necessitated on account of the creation
B   of the post of the Director General in the office of the Lokayukta. Nor was
    the notification intended to divest the Lokayukta of his powers and to vest
    the said powers only in the Director General. For the aforesaid reasons, the
  Memorandum dated 2.9.1997 issued by the Lokayukta after the judgment of
  the learned Single Judgr has become redundant as held by the Division
  Bench. Thus the main argument relating to the threat to the independence of
C the Lokayukta which appealed to the learned Single Judge stands rejected.

          Point 2:

          The next question is whether when the State Government had' sent the
D   police officers on deputation to the Lokayukta, it was permissible for the
    Government to entrust them with additional duties under the Prevention of
    Corruption Act, 1988?

          The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are one, as
    already stated, in accepting that the police officers of the State on deputation
E   continue to remain as public servants in the service of the State Government, .
    as along as they are not absorbed in the Lokayukta. This legal p<;>sition is
    absolutely unassailable because the State of Karnataka has merely lent the
    services of these officers to the Lokayukta and the officers continue to be
    employees of the State. Inspite of the deputation of these officers with the
F   Lokayukta the relationship of master and servant between the State of                  _c.
    Karnataka and these officers does not stand terminated State of Punjab v.
    lnder Singh, [1997] 6 SCC 372.

          There is no dispute that though these officers are on deputation they
G are otherwise of the requisite rank as contemplated by section 17 of the
    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that other formalities under that Act
    are satisfied for entrustment of duties under the Prevention of Corruption Ac!,
    1988. Question is whether these police officers of the State can be invested
    with powers of investigation under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption
    Act, 1988 by the Stated under its statutory powers traceable to the same
H   section?
              C. RANGASWAMAIAH v. KARNATAKA LOKA YUKTA [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J J 851

                   It is true that normally, in respect of officers sent on deputation by the A
            State to another authority, the lending authority should not, after deputation
            of its officers, entrust extra duties concerning the said lending authority to
            such officers without the consent of the borrowing authority. If, however,
            such action is taken by the lending authority by virtue of statutory powers
            and such a course is not objected to by the borrowing authority, can it be
            said that the entrustment is without jurisdiction? In our opinion, from a B
            jurisdictional angle, the entrustment being under statutory powers of the
            State traceable to section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the
            same can not be said to be outside the jurisdiction of the State Government.
            May be, if it is done without consulting the Lokayukta and obtaining its
            consent, it can only be treated as an issue between the State and the Lokayukta C
            and is none of the concern of those public servants against whom these
            police officers on deputation are conducting the investigation. Such
            entrustment of duties has statutory backing and obviously also the tacit
            approval of the Lokayukta. Once there is such tacit approval of the Lokayukta,
            the writ petitioners can not have any grievance that the Lokayukta ought not D
            to have permitted such a course.

                  Point 3 and 4:

                  As stated by the Division Bench, situations might arise where the
            Government might like to entrust such duties to the police officers on deputation   E
            but the Lokayukta might feel that such entrustment would affect the
            independent working of the Lokayukta or add unreasonably to the workload
            of the officers on deputation in the office of the Lokayukta. The question is
            as to how to harmonise the powers of the Government under the Central Act
            and of the Lokayukta under the State Act. Points 3 and 4 deal with the
            balancing of the respective powers of the State Government and the Lokayukta.       F
                  In our view, if the State Government wants to entrust such extra work
            to the officers on deputation with the Lokayukta, if can certainly inform the
            Lokayukta of its desire to do so. If the Lokayukta agrees to such entrustment,
            there will be no problem. But if for good reasons the Lokayukta thinks that G
            such entrustment of work by· the State Government is likely to~ affect its
            functioning or is likely to affect its independence, it can certainly inform the
....,..,.   State Government accordingly. In case the State Government does not accept
            the view point of the Lokayukta, then it will be open to the Lokayukta, -
            having regard to the need to preserve its independence and .effective
            functioning to take action under section 15(4) {read with section 15(2)} and H
    852                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A direct that these officers on deputation in its police wing will not take up any
    such work entrusted to them by the State Government. Of course, it is
    expected that the State Government and the Lokayukta will avoid any such
    unpleasant situations but will act reasonably in their respective spheres.

          But once the Lokayukta has, as in the present case, not objected, - at
B the threshold - to such entrustment of work by the State Government to the
    officers on deputation, then it.will not normally be reasonable for the Lokayukta
    to object to said entrustment when these officers are half-way through the           ...
    extra work. Such withdrawal by the Lokayukta at a latter stage might create         ...
    various administrative problems and will only help the public servants against
C   whom investigation is being done to raise unnecessary legal issues. Of
    course, in the present case, it is not the Lokayukta which has raised any
    objection but it is the public servants - against whom the investigation is
    going on - who have raised objections. As already stated, they cannot raise
    objections if the Lokayukta has not raised any objections at the threshold.
    The above, in our view, will take care of the independence and effective
D   working of the Lokayukta and at the sametime will enable ·.;.e State of Karnataka
    if need be, to exercise its statutory powers under section 17 of the Prevention
    of Corruption Act, 1988.

          In the matters before us, as already stated, there has been no objection
    by the Lokayukta at the initial stage of the entrustment of work under section
E   17 of the Central Act to these police officers on deputation. It is therefore not
    possible to interdict the further investigation by these officers at this stage
    at the instance of the public ,servants. As stated above, if no objection has
    come from the Lokayukta at the time of initial entrustment, it is certainly not
    permissible for the public servants against wliom the investigation is being
p   done, to raise objection. The Division Bench was right in holding that the
    Memorandum dated 2.9.1997 issued by the Lokayukta is, in fact, purely
    consequential to the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in declaring
    the same to be invalid and also redundant.

          We may, however, add that if instead of deputation of police officers
G   from the Government, any other solution can be found~ that is a matter to be
    decided amicably between the State Government and the Lokayukta, - keeping
    in view the independence of the Lokayukta and its effective functioning as
    matters of utmost importance.

        Before parting with the case, we may reiterate what this Court stated
H recently in connection with the independence of the Lokayukta in a case
      C. RANGASWAMAIAH v. KARNATAKA LOKA YUKTA [M. JAGANNADHA RAO,!.]            853
     arising under the corresponding statute from Andhra Pradesh, in Institute of A
     A.P. Lokayukta etc. v. T Ramasubba Reddy, (1997] 9·SCC 42 (at page 42):

                "The legislative intent behind the enactment is to see that the public
                servants covered by the sweep of the Act should be answerable for
                their actions as such to the Lokayukta who is to be a Judge or a
                retired Chief Justice of the High court and in appropriate cases to the B
                Upa-Lokayukta who is a District Judge of Grade I as recommended by
..              the Chief Justice of the High Court, so that these statutory authorities
                can work as real ombudsmen for ensuring that people's faith in the
                working of these public servants is not shaken. The statutory
                authorities are meant to cater to the need of the public at large with C
                a view to seeing that public confidence in the working of public
                bodies remains intact. When such authorities consist of high judicial
                dignitaries it would be obvious that such authorities should be armed
                with appropriate powers and sanctions so that their orders and opinion's
                do not become mere paper directions. The decisions of Lokayukta and
                Upa-Lokayukta;·therefore, must be capable of being fully implemented. D
               ·these authorities should not be reduced to mere paper tigers but must ·
                be armed with proper teeth and claws so that the efforts put in by
                them are not wasted and their reports are not shelved by the
                disciplinary authorities concerned."

              For the aforesaid reasons, the special leave petitions are dismissed.     E
     V.S.S.                                                      Petitions dismissed.