Coming down heavily on the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) over its stand on its probe into the allegations regarding the promotion of N. Sankar Reddy as VACB Director, the Kerala High Court on Monday observed that the State government would have to think very seriously and decide whether the VACB should be allowed to reign over the government.
Directing the VACB to explain its authority to comment on or direct the government to review administrative decisions taken by the government, the court observed that “if the Vigilance is given such powers, Kerala will go to Vigilance Raj.”
The VACB came under fire when a petition filed by Leader of the Opposition Ramesh Chennithala against the directive of the Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Court to conduct a probe against him in a case came up for hearing.
Sankar Reddy issue
In a report filed as directed by the High Court, C.S. Vinod, Inspector of Police, VACB, Special Investigation Unit, Thiruvananthapuram, and investigation officer in the case, said that it was clearly revealed that the State government was not authorised to promote Mr. Reddy and other four IPS officers to the cadre post of DGP.
He added that whether this would constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was under inquiry and had not yet been finalised.
The report further said the inquiry disclosed that invoking Section 4(2) of the IPS Cadre Rule 1954 in the alleged promotion of Mr. Reddy and others was not a right decision.
The High Court also took to task the Vigilance court for what it called “mechanically and senselessly” forwarding complaints to the VACB either for preliminary inquiry or for investigation.
“It appears that some of our Special Judges (Vigilance) do not know the scope and extent of their functions under the Prevention of Corruption Act,” the court observed.
Govt. prerogative
As for the statement filed by the VACB Inspector, the court said promotion to high officials under the direct control of the government was the prerogative of the government, of course, subject to the law and established procedure.
The inspector had even gone to the extent of deciding the legality of the appointment made by the government.
He has no such business and the VACB has not such authority to question or inquire into or report or decide on the administrative matters and decision of the government.
The public prosecutor submitted that the present government had approved the decision of the previous government regarding the promotion to Mr. Reddy and four others because it was a Cabinet decision.
The court observed that it was quite unfortunate that the Vigilance court had ventured to decide on the legality or propriety of the decision taken by the government.
This was not a subject within the powers and functions of a special court established under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court also asked the inspector to file a report stating the result of the inquiry if it was over.
