A special court here on Friday admitted a plea seeking the rejection of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) report that exonerated Additional Chief Secretary, Finance, K.M. Abraham from any wrongdoing in an illegal amassment of wealth complaint against him.
Sasthamangalam R. Ajith Kumar, counsel for de-facto complainant Jomon Puthenpurackal, told Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge A. Badharudheen that the VACB had “arbitrarily selected” 2000-09 as the check period to “help the suspect official.”
He argued that the VACB should have inquired into the “entire acquisitions” of Mr. Abraham after he joined civil service. Instead, the agency limited the scope of its inquiry to a brief period to absolve the bureaucrat, he alleged.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Ajith Kumar sought to disparage the financial statements filed periodically by Mr. Abraham and attempted to punch holes in the claims made by the senior bureaucrat in his relevant communications to the government.
The high profile pre-cursory inquiry against Mr. Abraham had been marred with controversies. The VACB had inspected his apartment without prior notice and in his absence. The examination had appalled his wife, who was alone at home at the time. The controversy had forced VACB Director Jacob Thomas to issue a show cause notice to the inspecting officer.
The agency had also questioned Mr. Abraham several times. He had reportedly stated that the amassment of wealth complaint against him was part of a conspiracy to discredit him. He saw it as a reprisal for unearthing big ticket corruption in the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC).
ADVERTISEMENT
The VACB, in its report, had debunked the complainant’s theory that Mr. Abraham had constructed a three-storey apartment in Kollam and purchased a flat in Mumbai using ill-gotten wealth. It said the apartment was built by his brothers, both high-earning NRIs, and his flat in Mumbai and Thiruvananthapuram were purchased using loans raised on the strength of his legitimate earnings and inheritance. The court would hear the case again on January 28.