<div>Justice Subhash B Adi on Tuesday reacted sharply to the petition by Congress MLAs to the Speaker to move a motion to oust him as the Upalokayukta.<br /><br />Justice Adi said his direction for investigation into corruption within the Lokayukta was the reason for former Upalokayukta Justice S B Majage to target him. “Let them produce one instance of me involved in corruption, I will resign. This situation is created only to destabilise this institution (Lokayukta). I will not let this institution perish as long as I am here,” he said.<br /><br />Though it is not known what charges Congress MLAs have mentioned in the petition to the Speaker, Justice Adi reiterated that the enquiry report pertaining to one Dr Sheela Patil was placed before him by mistake, which was proved by an internal enquiry. He said based on an anonymous complaint, Justice Majage had directed a vigilance director of the Lokayukta to hold an enquiry against Dr Patil. The allegations were found to be baseless and the report was submitted to Upalokayukta Justice Majage on January 16, 2014.<br /><br />The position of law<br />“The Lokayukta Act states that where two or more Upalokayuktas are appointed under the Act, the Lokayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of them matters which may be investigated by them under the Act. However, it is an internal arrangement and the Act specifies that no investigation by the Upalokayukta can be questioned on the jurisdiction issue. With regard to Dr Patil’s case, since the file was placed before me, I just forwarded the report based on the one submitted by the enquiry officers. The government also accepted the report. Later, on February 24, 2014, Justice Majage ordered an internal enquiry to find out how the enquiry report was sent to me. The enquiry proved that it was forwarded to me by Majage’s office staff. Yet, he kept the internal enquiry report for more than a year, till his last day in office on July 17, 2015,” Justice Adi said.<br /><br />He said that as per the Lokayukta Act, the senior-most Upalokayukta can only discharge the administrative duties of the Lokayukta in the absence of the latter. “Section 15 (4) of the Lokayukta Act only delegates administrative powers of the Lokayukta to the senior-most Upalokayukta. I cannot discharge the duties of the Lokayukta, such as clearing pending enquiries or passing orders against public servants who fall under the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta,” he said.<br /><br />On the move by the Congress to oust him, Justice Adi said he was hurt and hoped that truth would prevail.<br /><br />“All this started when a complaint was filed before me alleging inaction on the Lokayukta SP report about corruption within the Lokayukta. I had discussed this issue with Lokayukta Justice Y Bhaskar Rao and also with Justice S B Majage. Both ignored my concerns and Justice Majage, in fact, agreed to Justice Rao’s decision to hand over the case to CCB. I was in Mangaluru at that time and they took a decision. Since then, unseen forces have been trying to malign my image,” Justice Adi said.<br /></div>
<div>Justice Subhash B Adi on Tuesday reacted sharply to the petition by Congress MLAs to the Speaker to move a motion to oust him as the Upalokayukta.<br /><br />Justice Adi said his direction for investigation into corruption within the Lokayukta was the reason for former Upalokayukta Justice S B Majage to target him. “Let them produce one instance of me involved in corruption, I will resign. This situation is created only to destabilise this institution (Lokayukta). I will not let this institution perish as long as I am here,” he said.<br /><br />Though it is not known what charges Congress MLAs have mentioned in the petition to the Speaker, Justice Adi reiterated that the enquiry report pertaining to one Dr Sheela Patil was placed before him by mistake, which was proved by an internal enquiry. He said based on an anonymous complaint, Justice Majage had directed a vigilance director of the Lokayukta to hold an enquiry against Dr Patil. The allegations were found to be baseless and the report was submitted to Upalokayukta Justice Majage on January 16, 2014.<br /><br />The position of law<br />“The Lokayukta Act states that where two or more Upalokayuktas are appointed under the Act, the Lokayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of them matters which may be investigated by them under the Act. However, it is an internal arrangement and the Act specifies that no investigation by the Upalokayukta can be questioned on the jurisdiction issue. With regard to Dr Patil’s case, since the file was placed before me, I just forwarded the report based on the one submitted by the enquiry officers. The government also accepted the report. Later, on February 24, 2014, Justice Majage ordered an internal enquiry to find out how the enquiry report was sent to me. The enquiry proved that it was forwarded to me by Majage’s office staff. Yet, he kept the internal enquiry report for more than a year, till his last day in office on July 17, 2015,” Justice Adi said.<br /><br />He said that as per the Lokayukta Act, the senior-most Upalokayukta can only discharge the administrative duties of the Lokayukta in the absence of the latter. “Section 15 (4) of the Lokayukta Act only delegates administrative powers of the Lokayukta to the senior-most Upalokayukta. I cannot discharge the duties of the Lokayukta, such as clearing pending enquiries or passing orders against public servants who fall under the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta,” he said.<br /><br />On the move by the Congress to oust him, Justice Adi said he was hurt and hoped that truth would prevail.<br /><br />“All this started when a complaint was filed before me alleging inaction on the Lokayukta SP report about corruption within the Lokayukta. I had discussed this issue with Lokayukta Justice Y Bhaskar Rao and also with Justice S B Majage. Both ignored my concerns and Justice Majage, in fact, agreed to Justice Rao’s decision to hand over the case to CCB. I was in Mangaluru at that time and they took a decision. Since then, unseen forces have been trying to malign my image,” Justice Adi said.<br /></div>
