Disposed

Gheevarghese Mathew v. the District Collector

Kerala HC15 Nov 2023WP(C)/37838/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a government servant, challenged a District Collector's recommendation for a vigilance enquiry despite prior verification finding allegations baseless. The court granted liberty to submit records to Vigilance and directed the Collector to consider resignation supporting documents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to submit records to Vigilance and approach District Collector for resignation application; District Collector directed to consider submitted documents.

Gheevarghese Mathew Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 37838 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

GHEEVARGHESE MATHEW, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. MATHEW VARGHESE, VARIKKAYIL HOUSE,
MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 680651
BY ADVS.
M.R.DHANIL
SENITTA P. JOJO

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680003

¶9

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU

¶10

THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680022

¶11

3 SUPERINTENDENT, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682017

¶12

BY SRI.RAJESH A,SPL GP VIGILANCE,REKHA SR PP SMT.REKHA-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 37838 OF 2023

K.BABU, J

W.P(C) No.37838 of 2023

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2023

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The prayers in this Writ Petition are as follows:

¶23

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari, order or direction, by setting aside Exhibit P3 and its further proceedings of the 1^st respondent, by finding it as illegal.

¶24

ii) Declare that, the issuance of Exhibit P3 and initiation of its further proceedings of the 1^st respondent, is legally not sustainable and not in accordance with provisions of law.

¶25

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶26

iv) Dispense with production of English translation of the documents.”

¶27

The petitioner was a Government servant, employed in the

¶28

Revenue Department. He submitted his resignation from the service on 4.7.2022 before the District Collector, through proper channel.

¶29

A person by name Sri.N.V.Baburaj filed a complaint against

¶30

the petitioner before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, alleging that he has abused his official position and committed misconduct. The Vigilance verified the complaint and found that the allegations levelled

¶31

against the petitioner by Sri.N.V.Baburaj are not sustainable, which is

¶32

W.P(C) No.37838 of 2023

¶33

¶34

evident from Ext.P1.

¶35

The grievance of the petitioner is that the same complainant,

¶36

based on the allegations levelled in the previous complaint, submitted another complaint before the District Collector, Thrissur. The District Collector, without noting the fact that the Vigilance had already verified the allegations in the complaint and concluded that the allegations are baseless, recommended for an enquiry by the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Bureau. The proceedings of the District Collector recommending the Vigilance enquiry is marked as Ext.P3.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owing to

¶38

the false complaint preferred by Sri.N.V.Baburaj, the District Collector has not processed the resignation submitted by the petitioner which causes undue hardship to him.

¶39

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

¶40

Vigilance submitted that the Vigilance had earlier verified the allegations levelled against the petitioner by Sri.N.V.Baburaj and found that there were no sustainable materials in the allegations.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to submit the relevant records before the Vigilance authorities. The learned counsel also seeks liberty to submit the result of the verification

¶42

W.P(C) No.37838 of 2023

¶43

¶44

conducted by the Vigilance before the District Collector, in support of his application seeking resignation.

¶45

Having regard to the materials brought before this Court, the

¶46

Writ Petition is closed as follows:

¶47

a) The petitioner is at liberty to submit the relevant

¶48

materials relating to the allegations levelled against him before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. He is also at liberty to approach the District Collector and submit the relevant documents in support of his application for resignation.

¶49

b) The District Collector shall consider the documents

¶50

submitted by the petitioner while considering his application for resignation.

Sd/-

K.BABU

JUDGE

W.P(C) No.37838 of 2023

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37838/2023

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED TO THE
PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
THRISSUR, DATED 28/04/2023
Exhibit P2COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED TO THE
PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 20/05/2023
Exhibit P3COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/COMMUNICATION OF
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DCTCR/3441/2023-IA1
DATED 27/09/2023

¶59

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

Gheevarghese Mathew v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gheevarghese Mathew v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Sarafa Devi Vs P.E Narayanikutty

S. Jayan Vs State of Kerala

S.Remakumari Vs State of Kerala

The Punnamoodu Handloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Limited No.H 179, Vs State of Kerala

Kuriakose Vs Shaji