RAVINDRAN Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Dr. T. K. Ravindran, was formerly the Vice Chancellor of the University of Calicut. The first respondent filed Ext. P1 complaint before the second respondent, the erstwhile Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Commission alleging inter alia that undue favour was shown by the present petitioner in the matter of appointing Shri. Rajendran, who is his brother's son and Shri. Ratna Singh, who is Rajendran's father in law as counsel for the Calicut University to appear in the High Court. The said appointment was allegedly made after terminating the appointment given earlier to Shri. M. K. Damodaran. The petitioner therefore wanted proceedings to be initiated under S.11 of the Act.

(2.) The present petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission by filing Ext. P2 counter. It was contended that the petitioner did not come within the definition of the term 'public man' as defined in S.2(j)(v) of the Act. The petitioner is aggrieved that as per Ext. P3 order the Commission, applying Heydon's test, held that the definition in the aforesaid section should be deemed to include in the category of public man the Vice Chancellor also in so far as he is a member of the Syndicate, which category clearly comes within the definition of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings are absolutely incorrect and against the well accepted principles. According to him, the Commission gets jurisdiction to go into the allegations only against 'public man' as defined in the Act. It is pointed out that while a member of the Syndicate is specifically referred to therein, Vice Chancellor is significantly omitted. Though Vice Chancellor ex officio, is a Member of the Syndicate and though Syndicate members are also public men, it cannot be stated that in the discharge of duties as Vice Chancellor he is acting as a public man. The counsel drew a distinction between the definition of 'public man' in Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') vis a vis the definition of 'public servant' contained in S.2(o)(vii) of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, which is now in force. According to him, the omission to mention specifically the category of Vice Chancellor in the Act is significant and the Commission cannot, by virtue of its interpretation, include Vice Chancellor within the definition of the term 'public men' when the Legislature itself did not think of the same.