PALLICHAL S K PRAMOD Vs. OOMMEN CHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/complainant in Crl.M.P.No.1209/2012 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is the revision petitioner. The petition is directed against the order dated 11.1.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.1209/2012. The complaint was filed alleging that the counter petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The court below rejected the complaint finding that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case in support of the allegations levelled against the respondents. Parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in Crl.M.P.No.1209/2012.

(2.) The complainant is Advocate Pallichal S.K.Pramod. The 1st respondent is Sri.Oommen Chandy, the Chief Minister of Kerala and 2nd respondent Dr.Ajay Kumar, who is the Manager, Homeopathic Medical College, Nemom, Thiruvananthapuram. The gist of the allegation in the complaint is that the 1st respondent, Chief Minister of Kerala, abused his official position and hatched a criminal conspiracy with the manager to create 27 posts of non-teaching staff in the Homeopathic Medical College, Nemom, Thiruvananthapuram and obtained undue pecuniary advantage, causing corresponding loss of crores of rupees to the State exchequer. The averments in the complaint and the documents produced by the complainant on perusal would reveal the following among other facts. There was a long pending dispute with respect to the payment of salary for the teaching and non-teaching staff of SVHMC and those disputes were considered at the time when Sri.V.S.Achuthanandan was the Chief Minister. During that period it was decided to convene a meeting of management of SVHMC after the election to the Legislative Assembly. After election, the 1st respondent became the Chief Minister. The file concerned was placed before him. A meeting of the Management of SVHMC, representatives of the staff, AKPCT, Government Officials, Ministers etc. was convened on 31.8.2011 at the instance of the 1st respondent. In the said meeting a decision was taken to disburse the salary due to the staff covered by Direct Payment System already implemented by virtue of agreement executed between the college management with effect from September, 2011. The meeting also decided to allocate teaching staff as per the guidelines of Central Council of Homeopathy and to explore the possibility of enhancing the strength of non-teaching staff in the Medical College. Subsequently, Cabinet Meeting was held on 13.6.2012. Cabinet decided to create posts of 23 non-teaching staff subject to the decision in normative entitlement of posts and also to create four posts of Resident Homeopathic Doctors (RMO).

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that Direct Payment System was introduced in the College with retrospective effect from 1.9.2002, that as per the Direct Payment Agreement, appointment in the College could be made only with the approval of the Selection Committee. But, the College management made appointments in violation of the Direct Payment Agreement far in excess of the actual requirement. It is further submitted that the Special Private Secretary to the 1st respondent vide note dated 29.7.2011 in his official letter head requested to circulate the file to the 1st respondent, that the file was circulated as desired by him and the 1st respondent directed to convene a meeting on 31.8.2011. In the meeting held on 31.8.2011, the 1st respondent chaired the meeting. Minister for Health, Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, representatives of the College Management and others attended the meeting. According to the complainant, as per the minutes, only three decisions were taken in the meeting. The minutes was submitted to the 1st respondent for perusal and approval on 7.9.2011. It is alleged that the 1st respondent subsequently, added 7 more decisions in the minutes and signed the file on 4.10.2011 with an endorsement "minutes as revised approved". The learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent, Chief Minister, revised the minutes and incorporated decisions which were in fact not taken in the meeting only to favour the 2nd respondent. It is further alleged that the 1st respondent on 21.11.2011 directed the Health Department to place the file before him immediately. It is alleged that by an endorsement made in the file on 9.12.2011, the 1st respondent directed to issue orders before 31.1.2012 in accordance with the decisions taken in the meeting and to submit the file thereafter.