Kerala HC sets aside report in favour of ADGP S.Sreejith
The Kerala High Court has asked the Vigilance Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) to reconsider the complaint of Motor Vehicle department official Dipin Edavana against Additional
The Kerala High Court has asked the Vigilance Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) to reconsider the complaint of Motor Vehicle department official Dipin Edavana against Additional Director General of Police S. Sreejith. The court issued the order while quashing an earlier report of Biswanath Sinha, the then Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance, which stated that the complaint against the officer was false and vexatious in nature. Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a petition filed by Mr. Edavana seeking to quash the Secretary’s order and for the ACS (Home) and the State Vigilance Director to dispose of his complaint against Mr. Sreejith, alleging that he had attended an inaugural function of a private entity abroad in his official attire.
He contended that the complaint was decided without offering him a fair opportunity to be heard. Sinha, who went on to become the Chief Secretary, had filed a report before the court stating that the allegations in the complaint were untrue. The court chided Mr. Sinha for issuing such an order, stating that high discipline and fair practice were expected from senior officers and that the proceedings in this case lacked the same. Edavana contended that the Deputy Secretary for the ACS had notified him to appear for a joint hearing with Mr. Sreejith.
However, he declined, stating that it was “unfair to ask him to a meeting with the very senior officers against whom he has raised serious allegations.” The State alleged that no joint meeting had been convened and, to ensure a fair hearing, the petitioner was asked to submit his version, including the documents supporting his allegations, to the Vigilance ACS. The court held that the State’s contention that no joint meeting was called for appeared incorrect from the material on record. When serious allegations were raised, conducting a joint hearing could not be recognised as a fair practice as the complainant’s allegations may appear derogatory to the other party, especially when the opposite party is a senior police officer.
Thus, the conduct of the joint meeting aimed to put the petitioner in an “embarrassed condition” and passing the order after denying fair opportunity for hearing was found unsustainable.
The BriefWire