The main legal point established in the judgment is that a mere violation of procedure in appointing a person does not necessarily lead to criminal liability, and a vicious link or nexus between the person benefitted and the appointing authority is necessary to establish criminal liability.

ORDER :

The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 24.4.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.1414/2015 passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant challenges the order rejecting his complaint in this proceeding. The complainant filed the afore complaint alleging corruption in the appointment of Smt.Anila Mary Geevarghese (Respondent No.2 in the Crl.R.P) as Assistant Director of the Kerala Bhasha Institute. Apart from Smt.Anila Mary Geevarghese, the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint are Sri.K.C.Joseph, a Former Minister for Cultural Affairs, and Sri.Thampan, Director, the Kerala Bhasha Institute, Thiruvananthapuram. The Special Judge ordered the Director, VACB, to conduct a preliminary enquiry on the allegations levelled in the complaint. The Director of VACB submitted a report wherein disciplinary action alone was recommended against respondent No.2.

2. The learned Special Judge, after perusing the report and the pleadings in the complaint, held that no materials are disclosed in the complaint to proceed further against the persons arrayed as accused therein and rejected the complaint.

3. Heard Sri.B.Renjith Marar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rajesh.A, the learned Special Government Pleader, Smt.Rekha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, Sri.Manoj.P.Kunjachan, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Paul Jacob, the learned counsel for respondent No.3.

4. In the complaint filed before the Special Court, the complainant alleged the following:

i) Respondent No.2 produced a forged certificate obtained from Melinda Books, Thiruvananthapuram, as a testimonial for securing employment as Assistant Director of the Kerala Bhasha Institute.

ii) By appointing respondent No.2 as Assistant Director of the Kerala Bhasha Institute, the Government suffered pecuniary loss.

iii) Respondent No.2 claimed HRA while staying in the Government quarters allotted to her husband.

iv) The appointment of respondent No.2 on deputation was ordered in violation of the existing Rules.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Special Court ought not to have rejected the complaint at the threshold even without conducting an enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the complaint discloses no cognizable offences. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the complaint contains no allegation against respondent No.3.

6. Respondent No.2 was employed as a lecturer in a private college. She was appointed as Assistant Director of the Kerala Bhasha Institute. One of the qualifications for appointment as Assistant Director by direct recruitment was experience in editing as per the Special Rules for Kerala State Institute of Languages General Service (Academic and Administrative Branches). In the bio-data, respondent No.2 had declared that she had three years of experience in editing at Melinda Books, Thiruvananthapuram. She produced a copy of the certificate dated 15.6.2006 issued by Sri.Sivankutty Nair, the Manager of Melinda Books stating that respondent No.2 had three years of experience in editing. In the enquiry, the owner of Melinda Books Sri.Shanavas stated that he had not given any experience certificate to respondent No.2. However, he deposed that Sri.Sivankutty Nair was the Manager of Melinda Books from 2004-2007. He identified the signature of his Manager and office seal on the disputed certificate. The allegation of the complainant is that respondent No.2 obtained the certificate under a conspiracy and that the certificate is a forged one. Essentially, the allegation of the complainant is that the certificate produced by respondent No.2 is a product of forgery. As stated above, the owner of Melinda Books identified the signature in the disputed document as that of the Manager of the firm. He also endorsed that the office seal contained in the disputed document was his firm’s.

7. While dealing with