R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the former Chief Secretary of the State. According to the petitioner, he was the seniormost officer in the Indian Administrative Services in the whole of India. The present Cabinet Secretary is junior to the petitioner in service. He functioned as Chief Secretary from 1.3.1994 to 15.6.1996 on which day he ' proceeded on leave. While he was functioning as the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Kerala (Forests & Wildlife), he was appointed as Special Officer to establish a Sanskrit University in July, 1991. Later, he was appointed as the first Vice-Chancellor of the University with effect from 1.1.1994. He continued in the post of Vice-Chancellor for 30 months. According to the petitioner, he has an unblemished record of 35 years service in the Indian Administrative Service. There were allegations against the petitioner regarding various acts of commissions and omissions on his part while functioning as the Vice-Chancellor of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. On the basis of a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Police Officers, Exts. P1 to P5 First Information Reports have been lodged before the Enquiry Commissioner cum Special Judge. This Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a writ of prohibition and any other appropriate writ, direction or order prohibiting respondents 2 and 3 from conducting or concerning themselves with the conduct of the investigation in pursuance of Exts. P1 to P5 First Information Reports. The second respondent is Sri. C.P. Nair, the present Chief Secretary and the third respondent is Sri. K.J. Joseph, Director of Vigilance Investigation. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the first respondent to appoint an impartial investigating agency without in any manner being influenced by respondents 2 and 3 to conduct a fair and proper investigation into the charges now levelled against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has levelled serious allegations of malafide on the part of respondents 2 and 3, which according to him, vitiate the whole investigation now being conducted against him. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court by way of preventing the investigation on the ground that the present investigation is illegal, unfounded and motivated by malafide intentions on the part of respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, this Court has to decide the paramount question as to whether this Court will be justified in intercepting the investigation of the cases against the petitioner at this initial stage under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Sri. M.P.R. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this court would be perfectly justified in giving suitable direction to change the investigating officers on the ground of proved malafide. In order to drive home the above point the learned counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision reported in S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar ( AIR 1970 SC 786 ). In the above ruling the Supreme Court held as follows:

(3.) Strong reliance was also placed by the learned counsel on the observation of the Supreme Court by Mitter, J. in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras ( 1970 (1) SCC 595 ) which is as follows: