Leonard John vs Dr.Rajan.N.Khobragade Ias
2021 Latest Caselaw 18048 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 18048 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 September, 2021

Kerala High Court

Leonard John vs Dr.Rajan.N.Khobragade Ias on 3 September, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
                                         &
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
     FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 1287 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16232/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                                  ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC:

             LEONARD JOHN
             AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.JOSE MATHEW,
             JOHNSONS VILLA, NEAR SANGEETHA TALKIES,
             PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR - 670 001.

             BY ADVS.
             ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
             K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1       IN WPC:

             DR.RAJAN.N.KHOBRAGADE IAS,
             AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
             SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
             TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

             BY SRI.V. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS    CONTEMPT    OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Cont. Case (C)No.1287 of 2021-S
                                  2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2021

S.Manikumar, C.J.

Considering the material on record and hearing the learned

counsel on record, W.P.(C)No.16232 of 2020 was disposed of on

07.08.2020, with the following directions:

"7. In such view of the matter, at this juncture mandamus cannot be issued to respondent No. 1 to initiate prosecution against them. Reports seem to have been sent before March, 2020 and it is for the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Kerala to take appropriate decision. In normal circumstances, this Court would not entertain a public interest writ petition in service matters. However, in cases where serious irregularities/corrupt practices committed by the Government servants are brought to the notice of this Court for appropriate reliefs, court cannot be dormant. In the case on hand, it is apparent from Exts.P3 and P4, that in 2019 state wide raids have been conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and reports have been sent for further action. Though the petitioner has not furnished details of any action taken by the Health and Family Welfare Department after March, 2020, on the basis of the materials, we deem it fit to direct the 1st respondent - Secretary, Health Department to consider the reports submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram as expeditiously as possible and take further action in accordance with law"

Cont. Case (C)No.1287 of 2021-S

2. Contending inter alia that the said directions have not

been implemented in letter and spirit, that no prosecution has

been launched and that, therefore, there is willful disobedience of

the directions issued in W.P.(C)No.16232 of 2020, instant contempt

petition is filed. Responding to the averments, alleged contemnor

has filed an affidavit dated 24.08.2021. Relevant portions of the

same read thus:

"3. It is submitted that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau conducted surprise check in all the Food Safety Offices in Kerala and about 63 surprise check vigilance reports of the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau were received in the Health Department through the Vigilance Department. Pursuant to the above, necessary action as recommended by the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau are being taken in all the cases. It may be kindly noted that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has not recommended prosecution against any of the officers in the vigilance report that were furnished. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau recommended actions at the level of the Commissioner in some reports. Accordingly disciplinary actions were taken on 28 reports at the Government level. Memo of charges were issued to 68 officials in this case. A tabular form of the action taken report on the basis of inspection of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau in various offices under the Commissionarate of Food Safety Department is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a). Further, in many of the reports, findings are with regard to the improper maintenance of various registers in the Food Safety Cont. Case (C)No.1287 of 2021-S

Offices. Taking into account the above finding, the Government have issued Circular dated 10.05.2020 for proper functioning of the Food Safety Offices in Kerala. True copy of the aforementioned Circular dated 10.05.2020 and its English translation is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(b). Under the circumstances, it is clear that the above contempt petition is misconceived and not true to facts. This respondent had taken prompt action in tune with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court. The inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Court is highly regretted and the same may be condoned.

4. In the said circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this Affidavit, find that there is no deliberate inaction or disobedience on the part of this respondent warranting initiation of contempt proceedings and may be pleased to accept the above explanation and drop the contempt proceedings. "

3. Though Mr.Abdul Raoof Pallipath, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the respondent ought to have initiated

prosecution, as against the officers alleged to have been involved

in the irregularities, we are not inclined to accept the said

contention for the reason that from the affidavit of the

respondent, it is manifestly clear that the Vigilance and Anti

Corruption Bureau did not recommend any prosecution and the

Bureau has only recommended action at the level of the

Commissioner in some reports. Affidavit also states that Cont. Case (C)No.1287 of 2021-S

disciplinary action has been taken and charges have also been

issued to several officers.

We are satisfied with the affidavit filed by the respondent.