The judgment underscores the importance of proper investigative procedures and the need for substantiating allegations against public officials under conduct rules.

O R D E R

This Writ petition has been filed to direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to investigate the matter in accordance with law and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to register a criminal case against the 3rd respondent for amassing wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, as per the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act by considering the petitioner representation dated 27.09.2023, within time stipulated by this Court.

2.The third respondent is the Village Administrative Officer of the Keelavalavu Village. The petitioner belongs to the Village of Kottakudi. He made a complaint against the third respondent alleging that he constructed a house without obtaining permission from the concerned department. He further alleged that he purchased the property without obtaining sanction from the department and also constructed the building without obtaining the proper plan from the Panchayat and hence, he illegally constructed it. Hence, he made the complaint to the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 1 and 2, after receipt of the same, forwarded the same to the District collector, Madurai. The District Collector, Madurai, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct the enquiry. The RDO also conducted the enquiry and found that the third respondent, after obtaining the permission from the Government, purchased the property and legally constructed the property. Apart from that, the Vigilance Department also conducted the enquiry and they also independently found that the petitioner purchased the property and the amount invested was within the known source of income and also he constructed as per the rules applied to the Government servant.

3.With these pleadings, this Court considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent has not obtained the permission and constructed the house. To consider the same, this Court perused the record produced before this Court. The report of the District Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, dated 01.09.2023, is as follows.

4.The Vigilance department also affirmatively filed a counter and stating that there was no illegality in purchasing the property and also made the construction as per Rules. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit ie., Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 are extracted hereunder:

4.It is repsectfully submitted that the petitioner's petitioner dated 27.09.2023, was received by this Direcotrate on 04.10.2023, in which, allegations were raised against V.Alaguraj, Village Administrative Officer, keelavalavu Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, for having purchased agricultural land to an extent of 7 cents in Survey No.92/16 of Mangulam Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, for a consideration of Rs.21,000/- without getting proper permission from his competent Authority thereby, violating the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. Further, it is alleged that the market value of the said property is Rs.8,75,000/- and thus caused revenue loss to the Government and the said VAO had obtained permission to construct commercial omplex over the agricultural land illegally. Hence, the petitioner seeks necessary action on his petition.

5.It is respectfully submitted that the said petition was scrutinized in this Directorate. On perusal, the content of the petition relate to violation of Government Servants Conduct Rules and need verification of documents/records by the Competent Authority. Hence, the above said petition was forwarded to the District Collector, vide Ref. In DVAC Petn.No. 11661/2023/REV/MU, dated 16.10.2023, for taking necessary action at their end and the same was informed to the petitioner vide Ref.In.DVAC petn.No.11661/2023/REV/MU dated 16.102.2023. The above said forwarding was effected as per the instruction issued in Govt. Memo No.1356/64/2, Public (Services-B), dated 08.04.1964, and incorporated in Para

1093) of the Manual of the DVAC.

5.From the above reading of the report and the counter affidavit filed by the