Y THARUN ROY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner who was the Intelligence Officer (Rapid Action) in the office of the Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence), Commercial Taxes Office, Killippalam, Trivandrum, prays for setting aside Ext.P3 order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta, by which the Lok Ayukta has made a recommendation to the State Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and to give an action taken report. He also challenges the consequential steps taken by the State Government including the memo of charges and the recovery ordered pursuant to the order of the Lok Ayukta.

(2.) It appears that on 27.9.2008, certain goods alleged to have been imported were intercepted while being unloaded at Muttom, Aluva. Pursuant to that the Intelligence Officer issued notice. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for alleged evasion of tax and an order was passed on 12.10.2009 by the then Intelligence Officer (Rapid Action) under Section 47(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The security deposit amounting to Rs.1,93,605/- was seized and converted into penalty. The fourth respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner against the said order. On 26.11.2011, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the appeal of the fourth respondent and remanded the matter with certain findings. In the meantime, the petitioner had assumed office of the Intelligence Officer (Rapid Action) in the office of Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence). The order of the Appellate Authority being served upon him he noticed fourth respondent and directed him to produce some documents. Thereafter,in purported compliance of the appellate order, he passed Ext.P3 order on 15.9.2012. Respondent No.4 had a grievance against this order and again he appealed to the Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence). This time, when the matter was taken up by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner was of the view that the order of remand was not only not obeyed but virtually defied by the petitioner. He allowed the appeal, set aside the penalty order which had been reaffirmed in remand. He made certain observations against the inappropriate conduct by the petitioner. Armed with these observations as against the petitioner as made by the Appellate Authority, respondent No.4 then moved the Lok Ayukta making allegations and pleading maladministration. Lok Ayukta, after notice to the parties including the petitioner, was of the opinion that it would clearly be a case of maladministration actuated or motivated by suspected corruption. Accordingly, by the impugned order, recommended the State Government to take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner. It also directed the State to recover 8% interest on the refund of penalty, which the State had to pay to respondent No.4. State, accordingly, initiated disciplinary proceedings and Ext.P4, memo of charges have been served and State has ordered the Deputy Commissioner to recover the interest from the petitioner and reimburse the same to respondent No.4. It is against these actions that the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) In our view, the first issue that was raised in support of the writ petition is that the petitioner was exercising statutory quasi judicial functions and as such it would not be administrative function as contemplated within the definition of mal-administration as contained in Section 2k of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. That being so, the Lok Ayukta had no jurisdiction in the matter. Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of State of Kerala and others v. John Joseph and Another,2011 KHC 801 and in particular what is stated in paragraph 19 thereof reads thus: