IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17526 of 2010(M)
1. SIDDAPPA IFS (RETD.), NO.23, NAMAHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
... Respondent
2. G.GOPIDAS, ADVOCATE,
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
4. T.M.MANOHARAN, PRINCIPAL CHIEF
5. DR.A.K.DUBEY, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 19th November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 and seeks a
prohibition restraining the first respondent from
proceeding with Ext.P7 complaint.
2. The briefly stated facts are that in 1979,
petitioner was appointed into the Indian Forest Service
and was alloted to the Kerala Cadre and joined service as
Assistant Conservator of Forests. He earned various
promotions and in the year 2002, he was promoted as
Chief Conservator of Forests. By Ext.P6 order dated
31.3.2010 extending him the benefit of Ext.P1 guidelines
providing for promotion to those who have completed 25
years of service , petitioner was promoted as Additional
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and was posted
against a leave vacancy. Accordingly, he joined the higher
post and retired from that post on 31.3.2010 itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that such promotion
in pursuance to Ext.P1 guidelines was based on Ext.P2
representation made by him, Ext.P3 recommendation of
W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010
2
the screening committee and on Ext.P4 Cabinet Decision.
His grievance is that subsequent to his retirement, the
second respondent, a total stranger filed Ext.P7 complaint
before the first respondent in which Ext.P8 interlocutory
order was passed restraining the authorities from paying
the retirement benefits to the petitioner , on the basis of the
promotion that was given to him by Ext.P6 order. It is in
the aforesaid circumstance, he has challenged Exts.P7 and
P8.
4. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit
reiterating the allegations that he made in Ext.P7
complaint. Although he concedes the eligibility of the
petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P1 guidelines, according to
him, in giving promotion to the petitioner by Ext.P6,
respondents in Ext.P7 complaint have abused their position
and hence, it is argued that the 1st respondent was
justified in passing Ext.P8 order.
5. As already seen, what is under challenge in this
writ petition is Ext.P7 complaint and Ext.P8 interim order.
On a reading of Ext.P7 complaint, if it discloses an
W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010
3
“allegation” as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Kerala Lok
Ayuktha Act, 1999, Lok Ayuktha cannot be faulted for
having taken cognizance of the complaint on the ground
that it has exceeded its jurisdiction. If it is an act within its
jurisdiction, this Court also, at least for the present, should
not interfere with the proceedings and the petitioner should
be left to appear and contest the matter.
6. Therefore, what is necessary is to read the
complaint and see if prima facie, a case of “allegation” has
been made out. A reading of the complaint discloses that
following are the allegations.
i. On 26th March 2010, the 2nd and 3rd
respondents opened a new file proposing to create a post
named ‘Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
to illegally aid the 4th respondent to get promoted.
ii) For aiding the petitioner and to procure him
undue promotion to the newly created post of Additional
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests’ four IFS officers
senior to him had to be promoted resulting in the creation
of five posts
W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010
4
iii) A proposal put up by the second respondent in
Ext.P7 for creation of five posts was sent for the Chief
Minister’s approval through the Forest Minister and that
the same was returned with a dissenting opinion.
iv) On 27th March 2010, 2nd and 3rd respondents
in Ext.P7 submitted a fresh proposal to the Chief Minister.
v) On 31st March 2010, at 6 p.m, a fax message
was received from the Ministry of Forest of the Central
Government approving creation of post which was
communicated to the Government at 6.30 p.m.
vi) The Chief Minister approved the proposal for
creation of the post at around 7 p.m on 31st March 2010.
vii) On 31st March 2010, despite that the Chief
Minister approved the proposal only at 7 p.m., order was
fabricated by respondents 2 and 3 in Ext.P7 making it
appear that the same was issued in the forenoon itself.
viii). It is also alleged that records were created to
make it appear that the petitioner took charge as
Additional Principal Chief Conservator Forests with effect
from the forenoon on 31.3.2010 and retired from the post
W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010
5
on the same day at 5 p.m.
ix) It is alleged that as a result of the above, there
will be an increase of Rs.15,000/- in the pension payable to
the petitioner.
x) It is further alleged that respondents 2,3 and 4
in Ext.P7 has abused their position as public servants and
that they are guilty of maladministration, nepotism,
favoritism and corruption.
7. Although the petitioner who is the 4th
respondent in Ext.P7 disputes the veracity of these
allegations, as already stated, at this stage of the
proceedings, this Court need only be concerned whether
the averments in Ext.P7 complaint makes out an allegation”
as defined in the Act for the Lok Ayuktha to entertain the
complaint and if so, it is for the petitioner to appear and
contest the proceedings.
8. In my view, prima facie, reading of the aforesaid
allegations in Ext.P7 complaint discloses an allegation and
therefore Lok Ayuktha cannot be faulted for having
entertained the complaint. Therefore, there is no
W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010
6
jurisdictional error committed by the Lok Ayukta, entitling
the petitioner to challenge the proceedings in a writ
petition, at this preliminary stage. Of course, it is for the
respondents in the complaint to appear before the Lok
Ayuktha, produce materials and satisfy it that these
allegations are unsustainable and that therefore the
complaint itself is liable to be rejected and it is for the Lok
Ayukta to consider the pleadings and evidence and to take
a decision in the matter. Therefore, the prayer in the
petition for quashing Ext.P7 has to be rejected.
9. The second contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that Lok Ayuktha did not the power to
pass Ext.P8 interim order. This contention also liable to
rejected in view of Rule 3 (1) (c) of Kerala Lok Ayukta
(Powers of Civil Court) Rules, 1999 which confers power
on the Lok Ayukta to pass interim orders.
10. In view of the above reasons, I am not persuaded
to grant any relief to the petitioner. Be that as it may, fact
remains that as a result of the pendency of the proceedings
and the interim order passed, petitioner is deprived of his
W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010
7
entitlement to receive the pensionary benefits on the basis
of the promotion that was granted to him and according to
him even the last month’s salary has not been disbursed.
Therefore, once the petitioner appears before the Lok
Ayukta and file his pleadings, it is necessary that the Lok
Ayukta should complete the proceedings expeditiously and
I have no reason to think that the matter will not be
expedited.
Subject to the above, writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma