P.P. JALEEL Vs. P.K. MURALIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This public interest litigation is filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) In brief, facts are necessarily to be narrated to understand the background in which the present petition is filed. Alleging conspiracy between the accused persons of vigilance cases related to a public sector undertaking cement company (Malabar Cements) and the first respondent a complaint was filed by the petitioner. It is alleged that first respondent made several calls from his mobile to accused persons and negotiated for Rupees Fifteen lakhs to write a favourable opinion exonerating all the accused in the case of Malabar Cements including the former Managing Director. Subsequently, on the opinion of the Senior Government Pleader of Vigilance, High Court of Kerala Sri. P. N. Sukumaran, charge-sheets were filed against all the accused persons by initiating prosecution proceedings. Petitioner claims to be a public spirited person whose ambition in life is to expose corrupt activities of Government officers and public servants.

(3.) On a complaint of the petitioner, FIR came to be registered against the first respondent. Based on the legal opinion of the Chief Legal Advisor, VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, first respondent was suspended from service. The allegation was amassment of wealth disproportionate to the known source of income. Petitioner also narrates other aspects of the matter. Earlier he approached this Court seeking police protection when alleged threats were made to him by the first respondent. A writ petition came to be filed challenging suspension of the first respondent and Exts. P16 and P17 are the interim orders in the writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn when he was under suspension. First respondent got a provisional appointment subject to the result of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, when the writ petition was withdrawn, by suppressing the material facts from the Court, he was able to get a favourable direction that if there is vacancy he could be considered for the same. Inspite of the recommendation by the Director of Vigilance as per Ext. P20 to terminate the services of the first respondent, he was reinstated as Additional Legal Advisor, VACB, Thrissur as per Ext. P21.