The Kerala High Court has issued notice to the Director of the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) on a petition challenging the Government’s decision not to initiate, at this stage, a vigilance investigation into corruption allegations against DGP S Sreejith.

Justice A Badharudeen issued the notice on a petition filed by an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who has challenged the Government order dated August 19 that found a vigilance probe against Sreejith unwarranted “as of now”. The petitioner contends that the order was issued without proper application of mind despite material warranting further inquiry.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court alleging that Sreejith travelled to Dubai while on casual leave without obtaining permission to go abroad and attended the inauguration of a private enterprise allegedly linked to him. Allegations of benami transactions and other irregularities were also raised.

The High Court had earlier directed an inquiry into the complaint. However, the petitioner objected to a notice requiring a joint hearing in the presence of Sreejith. The court subsequently directed the Additional Chief Secretary to give the petitioner an independent personal hearing in Sreejith’s absence, observing that requiring a complainant to participate in a hearing with the person against whom allegations are made would not constitute a fair procedure.

Following the hearing, the Additional Chief Secretary appeared before the court on Thursday and submitted that the directions had been complied with. He informed the court that an order had been issued finding that a vigilance investigation was not warranted at present.

The petitioner has also raised allegations relating to Sreejith’s tenure as Kerala Transport Commissioner from April 2022 to August 2024. He alleged that an unofficial “Transport Commissioner’s Squad” was formed during the period and used to victimise subordinate personnel and facilitate illicit transactions.

The petitioner contends that the allegations concerning the alleged benami transaction and foreign business activity do not relate to decisions taken by Sreejith in the discharge of his official functions. Therefore, he argues, the statutory requirement of prior approval does not prevent an inquiry.

He has sought to quash the August 19 Government order and direct the VACB Director to conduct an inquiry into the allegations and submit a report to the High Court expeditiously.
(LiveLaw inputs)