ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P (C) No.17526 of 2010
Dated this the 19th November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
1. Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 and seeks a prohibition restraining the first respondent from proceeding with Ext.P7 complaint.
2. The briefly stated facts are that in 1979, petitioner was appointed into the Indian Forest Service and was alloted to the Kerala Cadre and joined service as Assistant Conservator of Forests. He earned various promotions and in the year 2002, he was promoted as Chief Conservator of Forests. By Ext.P6 order dated 31.3.2010 extending him the benefit of Ext.P1 guidelines providing for promotion to those who have completed 25 years of service , petitioner was promoted as Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and was posted against a leave vacancy. Accordingly, he joined the higher post and retired from that post on 31.3.2010 itself.
3. The case of the petitioner is that such promotion in pursuance to Ext.P1 guidelines was based on Ext.P2 representation made by him, Ext.P3 recommendation of the screening committee and on Ext.P4 Cabinet Decision. His grievance is that subsequent to his retirement, the second respondent, a total stranger filed Ext.P7 complaint before the first respondent in which Ext.P8 interlocutory order was passed restraining the authorities from paying the retirement benefits to the petitioner , on the basis of the promotion that was given to him by Ext.P6 order. It is in the aforesaid circumstance, he has challenged Exts.P7 and P8.
4. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit reiterating the allegations that he made in Ext.P7 complaint. Although he concedes the eligibility of the petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P1 guidelines, according to him, in giving promotion to the petitioner by Ext.P6, respondents in Ext.P7 complaint have abused their position and hence, it is argued that the 1st respondent was justified in passing Ext.P8 order.
5. As already seen, what is under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P7 complaint and Ext.P8 interim order. On a reading of Ext.P7 complaint, if it discloses an "allegation" as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Kerala Lok Ayuktha Act, 1999, Lok Ayuktha cannot be faulted for having taken cognizance of the complaint on the ground that it has exceeded its jurisdiction. If it is an act within its jurisdiction, this Court also, at least for the present, should not interfere with the proceedings and the petitioner should be left to appear and contest the matter.
6. Therefore, what is necessary is to read the complaint and see if prima facie, a case of "allegation" has been made out. A reading of the complaint discloses that following are the allegations.
i. On 26th March 2010, the 2nd and 3rd respondents opened a new file proposing to create a post named 'Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to illegally aid the 4th respondent to get promoted.
ii) For aiding the petitioner and to procure him undue promotion to the newly created post of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests' four IFS officers senior to him had to be promoted resulting in the creation of five posts
iii) A proposal put up by the second respondent in Ext.P7 for creation of five posts was sent for the Chief Minister's approval through the Forest Minister and that the same was returned with a dissenting opinion.
iv) On 27th March 2010, 2nd and 3rd respondents in Ext.P7 submitted a fresh proposal to the Chief Minister.
v) On 31st March 2010, at 6 p.m, a fax message was received from the Ministry of Forest of the Central Government approving creation of post which was communicated to the Government at 6.30 p.m.
vi) The Chief Minister approved the proposal for creation of the post at around 7 p.m on 31st March 2010.
vii) On 31st March 2010, despite that the Chief Minister approved the proposal only at 7 p.m., order was fabricated by respondents 2 and 3 in Ext.P7 making it appear that the same was issued in the forenoon itself.
viii). It is also alleged that records were created to make it appear that the petitioner took charge as Additional Principal Chief Conservator Forests with effect from the forenoon on 31.3.2010 and retired from the post on the same day at 5 p.m.
ix) It is alleged that as a result of the above, there will be an increase of Rs.15,000/- in the pension payable to the petitioner.
x) It is further alleged that respondents 2,3 and 4 in Ext.P7 has abused their position as public servants and that they are guilty of maladministration, nepotism, favoritism and corruption.
7. Although the petitioner who is the 4th respondent in Ext.P7 disputes the veracity of these allegations, as already stated, at this stage of the proceedings, this Court need only be concerned whether the averments in Ext.P7 complaint makes out an allegation" as defined in the Act for the Lok Ayuktha to entertain the complaint and if so, it is for the petitioner to appear and contest the proceedings.
8. In my view, prima facie, reading of the aforesaid allegations in Ext.P7 complaint discloses an allegation and therefore Lok Ayuktha cannot be faulted for having entertained the complaint. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Lok Ayukta, entitling the petitioner to challenge the proceedings in a writ petition, at this preliminary stage. Of course, it is for the respondents in the complaint to appear before the Lok Ayuktha, produce materials and satisfy it that these allegations are unsustainable and that therefore the complaint itself is liable to be rejected and it is for the Lok Ayukta to consider the pleadings and evidence and to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, the prayer in the petition for quashing Ext.P7 has to be rejected.
9. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Lok Ayuktha did not the power to pass Ext.P8 interim order. This contention also liable to rejected in view of Rule 3 (1) (c) of Kerala Lok Ayukta (Powers of Civil Court) Rules, 1999 which confers power on the Lok Ayukta to pass interim orders.
10. In view of the above reasons, I am not persuaded to grant any relief to the petitioner. Be that as it may, fact remains that as a result of the pendency of the proceedings and the interim order passed, petitioner is deprived of his entitlement to receive the pensionary benefits on the basis of the promotion that was granted to him and according to him even the last month's salary has not been disbursed. Therefore, once the petitioner appears before the Lok Ayukta and file his pleadings, it is necessary that the Lok Ayukta should complete the proceedings expeditiously and I have no reason to think that the matter will not be expedited.
11. Subject to the above, writ petition is dismissed.