Unnecessary corruption enquiries ruin public servant's career: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that unwarranted corruption enquiries can blemish the career of a public servant [The State of Kerala Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police v. Muraleedharan VK]..Justice K Babu, therefore, urged special judges functioning under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) to exercise prudence while ordering enquiries against public servants. "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", the Court said. .The Court also deprecated the actions of a special judge under the PC Act who made adverse observations against an IAS officer in a "casual manner". "Unfortunately, in the present case, the Special Judge was not conscious of his duties and obligations. I must say that the casual approach of the Special Judge in dealing with the complaint resulted in embarrassment to Shri. A. Jayathilak I.A.S. 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 Court observed. .The judgment was passed on a petition moved by the State government challenging the order of the special judge. The case stemmed from a complaint moved by one Muraleedharan who was a deputy collector at the time. Muraleedharan joined government service as deputy collector in 1987 and superannuated in 2020. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him while he was in service but after they were closed by the State government in 2022, Muraleedharan submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary seeking promotion. In his complaint before the Enquiry Commissioner and special judge, Thrissur, he claimed that that some officials in the General Administration Department withheld his representation which resulted in the non-submission of the proposal before the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).The special judge ultimately found that there was a prima facie case of misconduct by the officials and specifically made adverse observations against IAS officer and Additional Chief Secretary, A Jayathilak. .Before the High Court, Muraleedharan stood by the allegations he made in his initial complaint. However, he also admitted that he had not made any allegations specifically against Jayathilak..The appellant-State argued that Muraleedharan had been in the zone of consideration for promotion to IAS since 1998 but various selection committees did not recommend promoting him as they questioned his integrity citing pending disciplinary proceedings. .After going through the details of the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against Muraleedharan in the course of his service, the High Court opined that the same must have hampered his promotion prospects.Hence, the allegations against other officials were not believable. "The allegation levelled by the respondent/complainant that some of the officials of the General Administration Department demanded bribe from him is no way believable. He failed to establish a prima facie case to seek preliminary enquiry against the officials mentioned above. The complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant does not disclose any offence requiring verification," the Court observed. .Finding the order of the special judge to be "perverse, untenable in law, and, grossly erroneous and glaringly unreasonable", the High Court quashed the order as well as all the observations made by the special judge..Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) A Rajesh represented the appellant-State..[Read Judgment]