The Madras High Court has granted interim injunction restraining respondents from conducting any enquiry against C. Umashankar, an IAS officer, on the basis of a letter of last month.
In his petition, Mr. Umashankar stated that he was selected by the UPSC for appointment as IAS officer and he joined the Tamil Nadu cadre in 1991.
In May 2006 he was posted as Managing Director of ELCOT. ELNET, a public limited company, is jointly promoted by ELCOT. A company – ETL Infrastructure Ltd. – was promoted as a 100 per cent subsidiary of ELNET in 2004.
ETL Infrastructure, which came into existence out of ELNET funds, had gone out of the latter's control. As Managing Director of the ELCOT, he was also the ELNET Chairman.
He had proposed a special resolution for consideration by shareholders in July 2008 for removing Unnamalai Thiagarajan from the post of Managing Director of ELNET.
The petitioner submitted that he was transferred as MD, Arasu Cable TV Corporation, in October 2008. He took steps to protect the company's interest. After he submitted proposals to nationalise Sumangali Cable Vision, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him to deny him promotion as a Joint Secretary to the Union government. He moved the CAT, which stayed the proceedings.
A Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, who said he had been appointed as enquiry officer to probe allegations against him, sent him a letter dated May 6 requiring him to answer queries regarding his wealth.
Mr. Umashankar said the police were free to register an FIR against him if there was credible information warranting action against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under the guise of enquiry, a police officer in the rank of DSP could not be let loose on him, family members, relatives and friends. There was abuse of power by police under the garb of vigilance enquiry. “I am being subjected to an illegal vigilance enquiry by police.”
If it was departmental action, it should be under the All India Services Act or the Public Servants Enquiries Act. If prosecution was needed, law had to take its course in the manner prescribed. The enquiry was illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. It was malicious.
Mr. Justice Dhanapalan said he was of the view that the issue on the jurisdictional question is to be decided only after the counter is filed. He directed the government to file counter.
Taking note of the prima facie case and subject to maintainability of the petition, the Judge said there would be an order of interim injunction till June 28. The matter has been posted for that date.
