Prior Approval U/S 17A Prevention Of Corruption Act Not Required: Kerala HC Orders Preliminary Enquiry Into Corruption Allegations In CUSAT Selection Process

The Bench directed the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to conduct the enquiry and submit a report. This decision was made after observing that a preliminary enquiry was mandatory, as laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh [2013 (4) KHC 552], into allegations of corruption and malpractice in the selection process for the post of sweeper-cum-cleaner at the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT).

A Single Bench of Justice K. Babu observed, “The approval as provided under Section 17A comes into play only when the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision take by a public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties. This Court in Shankara Bhat and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2021(5) KHC 248] held that, it is not that every offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Act needed prior approval and that approval under S.17A is required only when the alleged offences were relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant.”

Advocate V.A.Navas represented the petitioners, while SC S.P Aravindakshan Pillai appeared for the respondents.

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to direct the State and university officials to constitute a special investigation team to look into the alleged malpractices in a 2018 recruitment process. The petitioners had applied for the positions in response to a 2008 notification. However after a new syndicate took charge of the University in 2016, a final list of appointed candidates was released in 2018.

According to the petitioners, despite the initial examination being conducted in 2010 and a shortlist of 750 candidates being created, the selection process was delayed indefinitely due to the pendency of certain litigations. It was alleged that even one month prior to the publication of the ranked list, the names of candidates who would be selected came to be leaked based on certain communication between some office bearers of an employees association and one of the candidates who appeared in the selection process.

The Court explained that the prior approval as provided under Section 17A of the PC Act came into play only when the alleged offence was relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of their official functions or duties.

The Bench referenced the decision in Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala [2021(5) KHC 248], noting that approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was required only when the alleged offences were directly related to recommendations or decisions made by a public servant in their official capacity.

In Shankara Bhat (supra), it was determined that not every offence committed by a public servant necessitated the above-mentioned prior approval. Therefore, the Bench found no need for prior approval under Section 17A for the allegations of corruption and malpractice in the CUSAT selection process, as the accusations did not pertain to any official recommendations or decisions by a public servant.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.

Cause Title: Bindulal V.S. & Ors. v. State Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:35039)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates V.A.Navas and U.Nidhin

Respondents: SC S.P Aravindakshan Pillai; SPL Gp Rajesh A.; SR PP Rekha S.

Click here to read/download the Judgment