"Not Conscious Of His Duties & Obligations": Kerala HC Criticizes Special Judge's Handling Of Corruption Case Against IAS Officer

The Kerala High Court has criticised a Special Judge's approach in a corruption case involving a senior IAS officer, highlighting serious lapses in judgment and procedural errors.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu admonished the Special Judge for incorrectly attributing allegations against the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) and making adverse remarks without due consideration of facts.

"A Special Judge functioning under the PC Act must be conscious of his responsibilities and obligations. Even an unnecessary preliminary enquiry may cause a blemish in the career of a public servant. Unfortunately, in the present case, the Special Judge was not conscious of his duties and obligations," the Court remarked.

The case centered around allegations raised by a Deputy Collector against senior officials in the Revenue and General Administration departments, alleging demands for illegal gratification. Initially, the Special Judge proceeded on the assumption that the complainant had implicated A Jayathilak, the then Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue), in these allegations. However, it became evident during the proceedings in the High Court that the complainant had never accused Jayathilak but had instead pointed fingers at the Chief Secretary at the time.

The Court underscored the importance of meticulousness in handling cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing that even baseless preliminary inquiries can tarnish the reputation of public servants. The Court's scrutiny revealed that the Special Judge had failed to grasp the nuances of the case, leading to unjustified adverse observations against the IAS officer.

During the proceedings, the complainant appeared in person before the Court and clarified that his grievances were directed towards the Chief Secretary for allegedly obstructing his promotion process, not Jayathilak. This revelation prompted the Court to criticize what it termed the "light and casual approach" of the Special Judge in handling the complaint.

The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings against the complainant had indeed impeded his career progression. Additionally, the Court found the allegations of bribery against officials from the General Administration Department to be unsubstantiated and improbable.

"I assert that the observations in the impugned order, which appeared to have been made against Shri.A. Jayathilak, I.A.S., an officer of the Indian Administrative Service who maintained impeccable integrity throughout his career, were unwarranted and unfortunate," the Court said. It added, ".. the casual approach of the Special Judge in dealing with the complaint resulted in embarrassment to Shri. A. Jayathilak, I.A.S."

Furthermore, the Court opined, "It is the responsibility of this Court to see that a patently erroneous order/observation of the Special Judge shall not cause any blemish in the career of an extremely honest civil servant. I am of the considered view that the observations in the impugned order are liable to be obliterated completely."

The Government pleader representing the State argued that the complainant's promotion had been delayed due to ongoing disciplinary actions and penalties imposed on him over the years. Moreover, he highlighted a pattern of frivolous litigations filed by the complainant against government officials.

Consequently, the Court overturned the Special Judge's order, emphasizing that no prima facie case had been established against the IAS officer and that the allegations lacked credibility. The court further criticized the Special Judge for not diligently examining the pleadings and misinterpreting the complainant's accusations.

Terming the impugned order as perverse, untenable in law, and, grossly erroneous and glaringly unreasonable, the Court ordered, "This is a case of abuse of legal process. The impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. All observations in the impugned order stand quashed. The order dated 10.10.2023 in Crl.M.P.No,871 of 2023 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur is set aside. The Original Petition is allowed as above."

Cause Title: State of Kerala v. Muraleedharan K. V.

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate A. Rajesh (Special Government Pleader)

Click here to read/download the Judgment