RAJEEV Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seventh respondent Co-operative bank invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up 6 posts of appraisers and 5 posts of peons. A written examination was conducted on 12.11.2017. 99 candidates appeared in the written examination for the post of appraisers and 158 candidates for the post of peons. The written examination was conducted with the assistance of an outside agency called "Global Trust, Kottayam". The maximum mark allotted for the written examination was 100. Short listed candidates were called for an interview. The mark allotted for the interview was 20. Petitioner was a candidate to the post of appraiser and being successful, he was called for the interview held on 25.11.2017. According to the petitioner, though he answered all the questions asked by the interview Board, he was ranked only 20th in the list. It was alleged that the answer papers of the written examination of those who had given bribe to the Directors were manipulated to ensure that they secure high marks in the written examination. It was further alleged that specific instructions were given to such candidates, to fill up only answers fully known to them. The left out answers were filled up after completion of examination with the help of Directors to ensure high marks for them. According to him, he had noticed few candidates including the son of a Bank Manager and the son of a local gold merchant spending time in the examination hall, without seriously answering the questions. They were also seen later at the time of interview. Few had informed him that they have been assured job. Later it was understood that the above referred persons were ranked top in the final list. It was alleged by the petitioner that the first 6 persons in the rank list were appointed to the post of appraiser by accepting Rs.30 to 35 lakhs as bribe. According to the petitioner, immediately after the interview, final list was published on the same day, and appointment orders were given to such candidates on the same day itself.

(2.) Alleging irregularities and manipulations in the above appointments, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the Vigilance Court, Thrissur. The court directed Dy.S.P to conduct a quick verification and to submit a report. The Dy.S.P, after conducting the preliminary investigation, submitted Ext.P3 report before the court. It was stated that the enquiry did not reveal any irregularity, attracting offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted in a perfunctory manner, the officer did not verify the relevant records and failed to investigate the relevant facts. The conclusions were perverse, not supported by any evidence and inconsistent with the finding that the appointments were made to posts which were not legally available to the bank. Bank also ignored the conclusion arrived at by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Ext.P4 report, that appointments were made in a hasty and illegal manner.

(3.) In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 report. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 Enquiry Report was not legally sustainable, not the outcome of a proper investigation and hence liable to be quashed. The request of the petitioner was to entrust the investigation with another senior officer of the Crime Branch.