The Vigilance Commissioner has recommended to the Home Secretary that further action against Inspector-General of Police A.K. Viswanathan be dropped as allegations that he had assets disproportionate to his income have not been substantiated.
Recording the letter of the Vigilance Commissioner, dated December 30 last year, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and N. Kirubakaran, treated a writ appeal filed by Mr. Viswanathan as closed, as no further order was necessary.
Originally, the IGP filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a writ to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and the DSP, V&AC, Chennai city, to forbear from conducting any enquiry against him based on the decision said to have been taken in August 2009 by the authorities.
Passing orders on the writ petition, the court held that when the competent authority was enquiring into the matter, the court could not interfere and the power was exercised by the authority in accordance with law and the DVAC manual. It dismissed the petition on July 12, 2010.
Aggrieved, the officer went in appeal. The court permitted the DVAC to continue the enquiry. However, it made it clear that the enquiry proceedings would be subject to the result of the appeal.
When the appeal came up before the Bench, the Government Pleader by producing a copy of the Vigilance Commissioner's letter, submitted that recording the DVAC DSP's affidavit filed, the appeal may be treated as closed. The Bench said that in view of the submission by the government advocate and recording the letter and the affidavit filed, it was treating the appeal as closed as no further order was necessary.
Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and Kirubakaran said that in another writ petition, the officer had challenged the manual of the DVAC. In view of the order passed in the writ appeal, it was of the opinion that the stage had not been set to consider the challenge. Hence it was treating the writ petition as closed.
In the letter, the Vigilance Commissioner, citing a report of the DVAC of November 21, 2011, recommended that further action be dropped against Mr. Viswanathan in respect of two allegations – one relating to his possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and another relating to acquisition of 500 acres at Kallikudi in Madurai district in the names of some companies in which his brother, sister-in-law and others are direct stake holders.
DVAC DSP N. Stephen Jesubatham in his affidavit, submitted that the detailed enquiry revealed that both the allegations have not been not substantiated.
