SUDHAKARAN N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General assisted by the learned Special Government Pleader, quite in extenso. This writ petition is filed seeking different reliefs. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 29/01/2014 (sic) (2015), held that the first among the reliefs sought for by the petitioner stands concluded at the hands of the Central Government and this writ petition is not the proper course to challenge that decision. The second relief sought for was to incorporate a further charge in CC No. 108 of 2011 pending on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The learned Single Judge found that such a relief cannot be entertained by this Court' and the matter was entirely within the domain of the Trial Court in terms of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that view of the matter, may be, as expressed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner deleted those reliefs along with prayer Nos. 6 and 7 in the writ petition. All that now survives is the expression of the learned Single Judge that it would be within the domain of the Division Bench to consider as to whether the relief sought for by way of interference with the Government's decision to appoint the ninth respondent as the Chief Secretary is to be granted or not.

(2.) As rightly opined by the learned Single Judge in the aforenoted order, appointment of Chief Secretary is the prerogative of the Government. We affirm that.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner says that his client is interested in ensuring that ends of justice prevails matters relating to the prosecution of CC No. 108 of 2011 and that he has filed this writ petition with all bona fides seeking the reliefs, fundamentally because appointment of the ninth respondent as Additional Chief Secretary and then, as Chief Secretary, are not made with the requisite vigilance clearance, in terms of Ext. P11 office memorandum dated 29/10/2007 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Allahabad Bank and Another v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, 1997 4 SCC 1, to say that long pendency of prosecution proceedings is not a ground to permit a person to go back to a sensitive post.