The Gauhati High Court has clarified that allegations of corruption in public appointments fall outside the jurisdictional bar imposed on the Nagaland Lokayukta for matters relating to service conditions. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed even when addressing systemic malfeasance in recruitment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a complaint filed on 10.10.2022 alleging that 12 posts of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) were illegally appointed in the Directorate of Employment, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Nagaland, without government approval, advertisement, or departmental screening. The complaint further alleged that these appointments violated the ban on recruitment then in force and constituted corruption under the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017.
Key Facts
- The complaint was filed by a third party on 10.10.2022 against the Department of Labour & Employment, Skill Development and Entrepreneurship.
- The Nagaland Lokayukta conducted a preliminary enquiry on 12.10.2022 and submitted a Progress Report on 12.12.2022.
- On 01.02.2023, the Lokayukta directed the Personnel & Administrative Reforms (P&AR) Department to verify whether approvals for the appointments were obtained in accordance with procedure.
- On 03.04.2023 and 23.08.2023, the P&AR Department sought clarification from the Labour Department regarding administrative approvals for 9 MTS posts.
- The Labour Department submitted a reply on 15.06.2023, disclosing:
- Only 10 MTS appointments were made, not 12 as alleged.
- One appointment was made on compassionate grounds with government approval dated 17.06.2022.
- Eight appointments were made under government approval letters dated 06.04.2022 and 05.05.2022.
- No advertisements were published in newspapers.
- No departmental screening committee was constituted.
- On 16.07.2024, the Nagaland Lokayukta issued an order finding that 9 appointments were null and void due to violation of procedure and recommended termination by issuing Show Cause Notices.
- On 07.01.2025, the Director terminated the services of the petitioners without issuing any Show Cause Notice.
- The termination order was stayed by the Single Judge on 15.01.2025 and subsequently withdrawn by the State.
- Show Cause Notices were issued to the petitioners on 22.01.2025, citing the Lokayukta’s recommendations.
Procedural History
- 10.10.2022: Complaint filed before Nagaland Lokayukta (Case No. A-NLP-40/2022)
- 12.10.2022: Preliminary enquiry initiated
- 12.12.2022: Progress Report submitted by Lokayukta Police
- 01.02.2023: Lokayukta directed P&AR Department to verify approvals
- 03.04.2023 & 23.08.2023: P&AR Department sought documents from Labour Department
- 15.06.2023: Labour Department submitted reply
- 16.07.2024: Lokayukta Order declaring 9 appointments null and void, recommending termination via Show Cause Notice
- 07.01.2025: Termination Order issued without Show Cause Notice
- 15.01.2025: Single Judge stayed termination order
- 22.01.2025: Show Cause Notices issued to petitioners
- 24.11.2025: Single Judge dismissed writ petitions WP(C)/3/2025, WP(C)/17/2025, WP(C)/18/2025
- 25.03.2026: Gauhati High Court heard batch of writ appeals WA/41/2025, WA/42/2025, WA/43/2025
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint under Section 9(1)(a) read with Clause (d) of the Second Schedule to the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017, which bars investigation into matters relating to appointments, discipline, or service conditions of public servants. They argued that the Lokayukta’s Order dated 16.07.2024 violated natural justice by not issuing notice or hearing them before declaring their appointments null and void. They further challenged the Show Cause Notices dated 22.01.2025 as being based on an illegal and procedurally flawed recommendation.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the Lokayukta had jurisdiction because the complaint involved allegations of corruption, which are exempted from the bar under Clause (d) of the Second Schedule. It argued that the Lokayukta’s findings were valid and that the Show Cause Notices were issued in good faith to comply with the recommendations. The State maintained that the termination and subsequent notices were lawful and necessary to rectify illegal appointments.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the Lokayukta’s Order dated 16.07.2024 to the extent it declared their appointments null and void
- Quashing of the Show Cause Notices dated 22.01.2025
- Setting aside of the Single Judge’s order dated 24.11.2025
- Declaration that their appointments are valid and protected under Article 311(2) of the Constitution
- Direction that any disciplinary action must follow due process
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 9(1)(a) read with Clause (d) of the Second Schedule of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017 bars the Lokayukta from investigating complaints alleging corruption in public appointments, and whether the Lokayukta’s failure to afford notice and hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the plain language of Clause (d), which explicitly excludes from the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction matters relating to appointments unless they involve allegations of corruption. They argued that while corruption is exempted, the Lokayukta cannot unilaterally declare appointments null and void without affording the affected persons a hearing. They cited State of U.P. v. Mohd. Noor and A.K. Krause v. Union of India to emphasize that even illegal appointments confer legitimate rights that cannot be extinguished without due process. They further contended that the Show Cause Notices were invalid because they were based on an order that itself violated natural justice.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the complaint clearly alleged corruption in appointment, which falls squarely within the exception under Clause (d). It submitted that the Lokayukta’s investigation was lawful and that its recommendations were merely advisory. The State maintained that the Show Cause Notices were issued to comply with the Lokayukta’s findings and that the petitioners had ample opportunity to respond. It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to assert that public interest demands strict action against corrupt appointments.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the structure of the Nagaland Lokayukta Act, 2017. It noted that Section 8 broadly empowers the Lokayukta to investigate actions by public servants, while Section 9(1)(a) imposes a general bar on investigating matters relating to appointments and service conditions. However, Clause (d) of the Second Schedule carves out a critical exception: "...but not including action relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claim which arise on retirement, removal on termination of service and such other action involving allegation of corruption in respect of appointment..."
"From the above quoted Clause, it is apparently clear that when it relates to allegations of corruption in respect to appointment the bar contained in Section 9 (1)(a) of the Act of 2017 would not apply."
The Court held that the complaint dated 10.10.2022, which alleged illegal appointments made without approval, advertisement, or screening, clearly fell within this exception. The Lokayukta therefore had jurisdiction to investigate.
However, the Court found a grave procedural flaw. The Lokayukta, while recommending termination, did not issue any notice to the petitioners, nor did it afford them an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized:
"The rights which are conferred upon the Petitioners on the basis of their appointment orders, in our opinion, cannot be done away with without following the principles of natural justice."
The Court distinguished between the Lokayukta’s investigative and recommendatory role and the State’s executive authority to terminate. While the Lokayukta could recommend action, it could not adjudicate rights. The petitioners, having been appointed and confirmed beyond probation, were protected under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 9(1) of the Nagaland Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967, which mandate a full inquiry before dismissal.
The Court further held that the Show Cause Notices dated 22.01.2025, which were based entirely on the Lokayukta’s non-adjudicatory order, were legally unsustainable. The notices did not independently state the charges but merely parroted the Lokayukta’s findings without affording the petitioners a fair opportunity to rebut them.
The Verdict
The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ appeals and set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 24.11.2025. The Lokayukta’s Order dated 16.07.2024, to the extent it declared the petitioners’ appointments null and void, cannot be applied against them. The Show Cause Notices dated 22.01.2025 are quashed. The State is not precluded from initiating fresh departmental proceedings against the petitioners, provided such proceedings comply with Article 311(2) and Rule 9(1) of the Nagaland Services Rules, including issuance of a proper charge sheet, opportunity of hearing, and a fair inquiry. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Natural Justice Trumps Investigative Recommendations
- Practitioners must challenge any administrative action based solely on a Lokayukta or ombudsman recommendation that lacks a hearing.
- Even if corruption is alleged, the affected public servant is entitled to notice, a statement of charges, and an opportunity to defend themselves before termination.
- The Lokayukta’s role is investigative and recommendatory; it cannot act as a disciplinary authority.
Corruption Exception Does Not Override Constitutional Safeguards
- The exception in Clause (d) for corruption-related appointments does not negate Article 311(2) protections.
- A public servant who has completed probation cannot be dismissed without a formal inquiry.
- Any show cause notice must contain independent, specific allegations - not merely a reference to an external report.
State Must Initiate Fresh Proceedings
- The State may still initiate disciplinary proceedings, but only after framing proper charges and following due process.
- Previous flawed recommendations cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass constitutional safeguards.
- Legal practitioners should advise clients to demand a full inquiry, not rely on external investigative reports as grounds for termination.
