The court confirmed that previous approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unnecessary when the alleged offences do not relate to official duties, allowing investigation into bribery claims against public servants.

ORDER

The petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in the case registered as V.C.No.04/2021/TSR by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thrissur for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and under Sections 465 , 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The first accused was the Chairman and the second accused was the Vice Chairman of the Guruvayur Urban Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') during the year 2017. Accused 3 and 4 were members of the Director Board of the Bank during that period.

3. The Bank had invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up six posts of appraisers and five posts of peons. The conducting of the written examination for selection was entrusted with an outside agency by name "Global Trust, Kottayam". The written examination was conducted on 12.11.2017. The short listed candidates were called for an interview by the Bank. It is alleged that the answer papers of the written examination, of those candidates who had given bribe and from whom bribe was demanded, were manipulated to ensure that they would secure high marks in the written examination. It is alleged that specific instructions were given to such candidates to fill up only answers fully known to them and the answers to the questions left out by them were later filled up with the help of the accused to ensure that they would get high marks. It is alleged that the final list of selected candidates was published on the same day of the interview and appointment orders were given to them on the same day itself.

4. One Rajeev, who was a candidate and who did not get selection, filed a complaint in the matter in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The Special Court directed the Dy.S.P concerned to conduct a quick verification and to submit a report. The Dy.S.P, after conducting the preliminary enquiry, submitted a report before the Special Court, stating that the enquiry did not reveal any irregularity or malpractices which would attract an offence under the Act.

5. Rajeev, the de facto complainant, filed W.P.(C) No.27091/2019 before this Court challenging the findings in the preliminary enquiry report of the VACB. As per the judgment dated 15.03.2021 in the above writ petition, this Court rejected the preliminary enquiry report filed by the VACB and directed a fresh preliminary enquiry to be conducted by another Dy.S.P. The operative portion of the judgment of this Court in the above writ petition reads as follows:

“Considering the entire facts, it is clear that the impugned report in this case is not legally sustainable. This Court has ample power to interfere in appropriate cases, though invariably this Court should not interfere into the discretion yet to be exercised by the Special Judge. However, in the peculiar situation arising in this case, Ext.P3 report will stand rejected. The second respondent shall direct another Dy.S.P to conduct a preliminary enquiry, strictly confined to the contours of a preliminary enquiry as laid down by Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case. The officer shall refer to the observations made in paras 4 to 11 of this judgment. Preliminary enquiry shall be c