IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of forgery or misappropriation against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of all proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

The prayers in the Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-

(i) to call for the records relating to No.9/2020 (VC 5/2017/KNR) on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thalassery and after hearing the petitioner and the respondents orders may be passed quashing all proceedings as against the petitioner initiated in pursuance of Exhibit P2 Final Report by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Hon’ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

(ii) Granting such other interim reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice;

2. The petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.9 of 2020 (VC 5/2017/KNR) on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassry. The petitioner and the other accused face charges under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is as follows:-

3.1 The petitioner was the Head of the Department of Chemistry at the SAT Campus, Kannur University. Accused No.2 was the Head of the Department of Physics. Accused No.2 sought permission from the Vice Chancellor to appoint a Professional Assistant in the Department of Physics. The University permitted Accused No.2 to appoint a Professional Assistant on a Daily Wage basis. One Sajith Kumar K. (CW 15) was employed as a Professional Assistant in the Chemistry Department. Accused No.2 obtained a copy of the educational qualification of one Vinod Kumar.D (CW14) and fraudulently added the address of the family house of CW15 and made records to the effect that the Department appointed Shri. Vinod Kumar D. as Professional Assistant in the Department of Physics on 18.08.2008. Accused No.2 misappropriated the salary of the Professional Assistant, stating that the same was disbursed to Shri Vinod Kumar D. Accused No.2 availed leave to attend an orientation programme from 10.10.2008 to 06.11.2008. The petitioner was given charge of the Department of Physics when accused No.2 was on leave.

3.2. The petitioner, while officiating as the Head of the Department of Physics, made documents showing that Shri. Vinod Kumar D. was transferred to the Department of Chemistry, knowing that appointment in the name of Shri. Vinod Kumar D. was fraudulently made by accused No.2. He also created documents showing that since October 2008 to June 2011 Shri.Vinod Kumar D. worked as a Professional Assistant and received a sum of Rs.1,84,450/- from the University.

3.3. The petitioner and the other accused dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated the funds of the University and obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means by abusing their official position, thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The Crime was registered based on a complaint filed by one P.Surendran, a staff of the University. The VACB conducted investigation and submitted the Final Report before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. The petitioner challenges the final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2020 (VC 5/2017/KNR).

5. I have heard Shri.T. Asaf Ali, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri. A. Rajesh, the learned Special Government Pleader (Vigilance).

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:-

There is no material to show that the petitioner appointed a person by name Vinod Kumar D. Shri. Vinod Kumar D. was appointed as a Professional Assistant in the Department of Physics by Dr. N.K. Deepak (Accused No.2) who was the head of the Department of Physics. There is no prima facie material to show that there was forgery of any documents. The allegedly forged documents were not sent to expert opinion. No forged documents were seized at all