LI Network
Published on: February 7, 2024 at 13:30 IST
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the mere procedural violations in the appointment process do not always indicate dishonest intentions on the part of the appointee or the appointing authority.
In a recent ruling, Justice K. Babu of the Single Judge Bench made this observation while dismissing a plea challenging the dismissal of a complaint alleging irregularities in the appointment of MLA Anoop Jacob’s wife to the position of Assistant Director at the Kerala Bhasha Institute.
The Court highlighted that the complaint failed to establish a link between the beneficiary and the appointing authority, making it unclear whether a malicious connection existed.
Justice Babu emphasized that while cases of malfeasance or wrong administration might occur, initiating a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires a clear connection to corruption.
The complaint in question alleged corruption in the appointment of Anila Mary Geevarghese as Assistant Director, accusing her of presenting a forged experience certificate and violating existing rules.
The Court noted that the complaint did not specify any malicious link between the beneficiary and the appointing authority, making it unsuitable for invoking the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Special Judge, relying on the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, rejected the complaint, finding insufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
The Court stated that the Revisional Court should not set aside an order solely because an alternative view is possible. As a result, the revision petition was dismissed, as the impugned order was not affected by any patent error of jurisdiction.
Case Title: S. Manimekhala v. State of Kerala & Ors
