Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has chided the media for “crucifying” officials who chanced to face precursory Vigilance examination in their line of duty.
Evidently referring to the controversial disproportionate assets inquiry against K.M. Abraham, Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Mr. Vijayan said he had deliberately broached the subject because he had an important issue that concerned an officer on his mind.
He was speaking at the International Anti-Corruption Day observance here on Friday.
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) had conducted an inquiry against the officer. It found that no offence had been committed as alleged. A report was given to the court. When the news broke that such an inquiry was on, it triggered lot of tales. Certain media reports hinted at plots and subplots. Some attributed certain motives. There was an uproar.
“When the inquiry concluded that the officer was above board, the news of his exoneration was published with little importance,” the Chief Minister said with a chuckle.
He said even officers with commendable track record and unimpeachable integrity had to face inquiry in the event of a complaint against them. Such inquiries were no reflection on their character or skills. The media should treat such inquiries as routine course of action and not damning verification.
As per the Supreme Court directions in the Lalitha Kumari versus State of Uttar Pradesh case, the VACB had no choice but to subject a complaint to a “5-level inquiry at its unit offices.”
Such strong steps had increased people’s faith in the agency. The VACB could not legally take the stance that it would not inquire a particular complaint.
When such an inquiry was initiated, certain persons solely interested in sensationalising issues would jump on to the piece of information believing that they were on to something big. This approach had to change. “Let the Vigilance investigate. If there is any offence, the agency would find out. Once a wrong has been found, such publicity could be justified. Otherwise, it would tantamount to distressing the person who is facing the inquiring and condemning him for no fault of his,” he said.
