N.Padmakumar vs State Of Kerala

K.Babu, J

The prayers in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-

“(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue a certificate stating that as such there is no vigilance case pending against the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to intimate the 1st respondent that there is no Vigilance case pending against the petitioner.

(iii) Issue any other writ or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.”

The petitioner is a retired IAS officer. The VACB Alappuzha Unit, registered crime No.2/2018/SIU-1 against one Sri. Thomas Chandy, a former MLA, the District Collector Alappuzha and twenty others.

The petitioner had served as the District Collector Alappuzha for a short period from 17.04.2013 to 19.02.2016. While the investigation was going on in the crime, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.3794/2018 seeking to quash the order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge  (Vigilance), Kottayam directing registration of the crime. In Crl.M.C.No. 3794/2018 the investigating officer filed a statement as follows:

“1. It is submitted that the petitioner in this Crl.M.C Shri.Padmakumar IAS, former District Collector, Alappuzha has not been arrayed as an accused in VC 02/2018/SIU-1. As per records of this Unit no other case has been registered against him. During the course of investigation in VC 02/2018/SIU-1, the defacto complainant Advocate Subash M.Theekkadan filed Crl.M.P 558/2018 against Shri.Padmakumar IAS before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam. To ascertain the facts in relation with the aforesaid case as well as the CMP, the petitioner Shri.Padmakumar IAS was interrogated by the Investigating Officer of the case. 2. It is humbly submitted that the investigation of the case has been completed and factual report was submitted to the Director, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau for scrutiny.”

Based on this statement the Crl.M.C. 3794/2018 was withdrawn.

The learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance), upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner has not been made an accused in the final report (Ext.P1). The report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB Special Unit-I, Thiruvananthapurm reads thus:-

“It is submitted that the petitioner was the District Collector for the period from 17.04.2013 to 19.02.2016. The investigation revealed that the petitioner taken an erroneous decision vide no.57262/2012 dated 12.11.2014 is found to be irregular and against the spirit of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act. No action was recommended against him as he was retired from service on 20.12.2020. However his action taking decision while exercising quasi-juridical function resulted in undue advantage to M/s. Lake Palace Resort by way of constructing a well pledged parking space. The investigation conducted revealed that no willful act or criminal misconduct has been committed by anyone of the public servants as arrayed as accused in the FIR and the irregularities noticed against the public servants involved in the case are matters to be dealt with departmentally and as such appropriate disciplinary action recommended against the public servants for their lapses noticed.”

In view of the report submitted by the Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) to the effect that the petitioner is not an accused, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no further relief is required in this Writ Petition.

Therefore, the Writ Petition (Criminal) is disposed of with the above observations.