IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 19441 of 2002(M)
1. A.ABDUL GAFOOR, PRESIDENT,
... Petitioner
2. THAJUDEEN, SECRETARY,
Vs
1. C.HARILAL, KAIRALI MANDIRAM,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
3. KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX,
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :31/03/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
O.P.No.19441 OF 2002
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the President and Secretary of
Kulathupuzha Service C-operative Bank Ltd. No.1867. A
complaint was filed before the Public Men’s Corruption
(Investigation and Enquiries) Commission, in respect of certain
allegations of financial impropriety by the petitioners. After that
Commission was abolished, the complaint was made over to the
Kerala Lok Ayukta. The Kerala Lok Ayukta considered the
application along with other complaints and passed Ext.P9 order.
The findings in Ext.P9 order in relation to the complaint against
the petitioners and the recommendations thereon are as follows:
“Complaint No.28/99.
This complaint is practically similar to Complaint
No.27/99, but is directed against the Secretary of the
Bank Sri.M. Thajudeen. It is unnecessary to repeat the
allegations except to state that the gravamen of charges
was that the Secretary did not discharge his duty when
he allowed the President to retain huge amounts with him
for a continuously long period that he did not take steps
to inform the Registrar that construction was being done
without the sanction of the Registrar and that he did notO.P.No.19441/02 2
take the necessary steps to ensure that loan accounts
were correctly maintained etc. It is also stressed that
the charges of Printing of Calendars should not have
been enhanced in favour of a particular company
without calling for fresh quotations. As these
allegations have considered while disposing off
Complaint No.27/99 it is not proposed to repeat the
same. It is sufficient if it is held that the allegations
are partly substantiated as already held in Complaint
No.27/99.
Recommendations
After having considered the contentions of both
parties with reference to the pleadings and the
documentary evidence made allegations made by the
petitioner are atleast partly substantiated therefore
made the following recommendations under Section 12
(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.
The Principal Secretary to the Government, Co-
operation, will conduct a comprehensive enquiry
through any independent authority including any officer
not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to the
Finance department, regarding the allegations made in
complaints 27 and 28 of 1999 with special reference to
the financial dealings of the Bank for the period 1.6.94
and (a) the amounts retained by the President and
Secretary and the duration of the retention of those
amounts in their hands (b) the particulars of the
amounts spent, together with the corresponding dates
and the purposes for which they were utilised. (c) the
legality and propriety of election expenses incurred in
respect of the election of the President Sri. Abdul
Gafoor being met by the bank (d) the legality of
enhancing the price of calendars without notice to
other bidders and without following the correct legal
procedure and the loss caused thereby in the printing
of the calendars of the year 1996 and (e) the grant of
loans by the Board during the year when the 1st
respondents were President and Secretaries till
31.12.1994.
O.P.No.19441/02 3
The Principal Secretary will constitute the
enquiry authority within three months from the date of
receipt of this order and report the fact to this court
under Section 12(3) of the Act”.
Although the petitioners challenge Ext.P9 order itself, now the
petitioners would submit that the petitioners are prepared to
face an enquiry. But the Lok Ayukta has already entered a
finding that the part of the charges have been proved, which
may be held against the petitioners by the enquiring authoirty
and therefore, even if this Court permits an enquiry as directed
by the Kerala Lok Ayukta that shall be untrammelled with the
earlier findings of the Lok Ayukta is their present submission.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for
the 1st respondent.
3. I am of opinion that from the very
recommendations of the Lok Ayukta, it is abundantly clear that
what the Lok Ayukta directed is only an independent enquiry
as directed by the Lok Ayukta. The Lok Ayukta itself had not
intended the enquiring authority to be influenced by its earlier
findings, which was only for the purpose of directing an
enquiry and therefore, it is only a prima facie finding. The Lok
O.P.No.19441/02 4
Ayukta itself wanted the enquiring authority to decide whether
the petitioners are guilty of the allegations against them on the
basis of the evidence to be collected in the enquiry.
In the above circumstances, this original petition is
disposed of with a direction that the enquiring authority shall
conduct the enquiry and enter a finding based on evidence
collected by it and not based on the prima facie finding entered
by the Lok Ayukta.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
O.P.No.19441/02 5