Kochi: The Kerala High Court has set aside a government report that exonerated senior IPS officer S Sreejith of allegations that he travelled abroad without prior government permission, holding that the inquiry process violated the principles of natural justice.
Justice A Badharudeen, in a judgment delivered on Thursday, quashed the compliance report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home and Vigilance Department, which had dismissed the complainant’s allegations as “false and vexatious”.
The case stems from a complaint alleging that Sreejith, while serving as an Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), travelled to Dubai on casual leave without obtaining mandatory government clearance to attend the inauguration of a private enterprise. The complainant also alleged that the enterprise belonged to Sreejith.
Earlier, the High Court had directed the state government to examine the complaint and take an appropriate decision after following due process.
Pursuant to the court’s order, the Additional Chief Secretary issued a notice asking the complainant to appear for what he believed was a joint hearing with Sreejith. The complainant declined, arguing that it was unfair to present allegations against a senior police officer in the officer’s presence. He instead expressed willingness to appear separately before the Vigilance authorities and submit supporting documents.
Despite his absence, the government concluded that the allegations were false and vexatious.
Before the High Court, the state contended that no joint hearing had been scheduled and argued that the complainant had merely failed to avail himself of the opportunity for a personal hearing.
However, the court noted that the compliance report itself referred to the complainant’s refusal to attend a “joint hearing”, contradicting the government’s stand.
The court held that requiring a complainant to present serious allegations in the presence of the person accused of misconduct cannot be regarded as a fair procedure and effectively deprives the complainant of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Justice Badharudeen also observed that the report failed to mention the date on which it had been prepared before concluding that the allegations were false and vexatious, further weakening its credibility.
Expressing disapproval of the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, the court observed that senior government officials are expected to maintain high standards of fairness and discipline, which were lacking in the present case.
The High Court consequently set aside the report and directed the Additional Chief Secretary to grant the complainant an independent personal hearing, without the presence of Sreejith, reconsider the complaints and pass fresh orders within three weeks.
The court also directed the authorities to separately consider the subsequent report submitted by the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and report compliance within the same period.
(With LiveLaw inputs)
