The Muvattupuzha vigilance court on Tuesday rejected a petition alleging criminal misconduct and seeking to register a case against Vigilance Director Jacob Thomas.
Pronouncing the judgment, Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge P.Madhavan said the petition lacked merit and had to be rejected at the threshold itself.
As per the complaint, filed by one Michael Varghese, Mr.Thomas had committed several irregularities and obtained pecuniary advantage while working as Director of Ports between 2011 and 2015.
Considering the allegation of corruption in the purchase and installation of solar panels, the court noted that Mr.Thomas had obtained administrative sanction from the Principal Secretary, Department of Ports, for the same.
“Here, the contract was given to a Kerala government undertaking and it cannot be said that the respondent had abused his position to give benefit to Keltron or Sidco, which are also government agencies themselves,” the order said.
Encroachment charge
Regarding the allegation of encroachment on 50 acres of forestland in Madikeri, the court noted that a criminal case in this direction was pending with a JFCM court there and, hence, it was a matter to be decided by the competent courts in Karnataka.
The court also turned down an allegation of corruption in purchase of a dredger and charged the complainant with trying to fish out materials for his allegation without having any direct knowledge of the same.
On a report prepared by the Finance Department and a note put up by the Chief Secretary, which the petitioner had submitted in the court, the judge observed that the report of the Additional Secretary, Finance, was more a fault-finding inquiry.
According to the judge, it was for the government to consider how these notes of the Chief Secretary, shown as confidential, had been made available to a private individual.
Besides all the acts in this case had taken place within jurisdiction of the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and the complainant ought to have filed a petition there, he added.
On allegations of disproportionate assets amassed by the respondent, the court noted that there was absolutely no material evidence except bald allegations, which was not sufficient to order a probe.
Meanwhile, the court did not consider the allegations with regard to misconduct of service rules in employment with TKM college as the petitioner later withdrew it in view of a writ petition under consideration of the Kerala High Court.
Another petition
Meanwhile, the Vigilance court is set to consider another petition against the VACB director on March 15.
