The Kerala High Court on Thursday said that it expected the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to complete the investigation into the allegation of amassment of wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income of suspended Inspector-General of Police Tomin J. Thachankary as expeditiously as possible and file the final report before the court concerned.
Justice R. Basant, dismissing a contempt of court petition filed against the VACB, said that it expected the authorities concerned to take appropriate decisions on the question of initiating departmental action against Mr. Thachankary on other allegations.
The court observed that it was incumbent upon the officers concerned to ensure that the investigation was completed as expeditiously as possible. This was necessary to restore the faith of the people in the rule of law.
The petition, filed by Bobby Kuruvila from Alappuzha, alleged that despite a lapse of three years, the VACB had not complied with the High Court directive to complete the investigation and submit the report within six months.
The government pleader submitted that a crime was registered on the basis of the preliminary investigation report which found that the allegation was true. The investigation was in progress and in view of the nature of allegations, more time would be required to complete it. The investigation officers would file the final report as expeditiously as possible.
The government pleader submitted that it would be impossible to give an undertaking that the final report would be filed within a time frame as more time was needed to complete the investigation. Besides, if such an undertaking was given, the accused alone would be benefited.
As for the allegations of smuggling of costly electronic items from Singapore, possessing more than one Indian passport, frequent overseas visits, misuse of departmental jeep, publishing of his photographs in uniform for publicity of cassettes abroad and working as an agent of Malayalam Communications, the VACB felt that only departmental action was needed.
The court made it clear that the petitioner could approach the High Court again if no action was taken by the authorities concerned.
