P.Vasanthakumari vs The State Of Kerala Represented By The ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 278 Ker

Kerala High Court

P.Vasanthakumari vs The State Of Kerala Represented By The ... on 13 January, 2026

Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

                                                         2026:KER:2621

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                   &
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
  TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 23RD POUSHA, 1947
                          WA NO. 17 OF 2026
        AGAINST   THE   JUDGMENT   DATED   19.12.2025   IN   WP(Crl.)
NO.1722 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(Crl):

            P.VASANTHAKUMARI
            AGED 65 YEARS
            W/O. VASUDEVAN, EDAMANDODIYIL HOUSE, CHERUVANOOR
            AMSOM, MUYITOTH P.O., NEW MAPPAYOOR, KOZHIKODE,
            PIN - 673524

            BY ADV SHRI.NIRMAL.S


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(Crl) :

    1       THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF
            SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2       THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
            DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT
            SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
            695001

    3       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
            VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    4       THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
            VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, KOZHIKODE
            UNIT, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673509

    5       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
            DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT
            SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, '
            PIN - 695001
 WA. No.17 of 2026                      :: 2 ::

                                                                 2026:KER:2621



      6       THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
              OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
              MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001


              SMT. R.REKHA, SR.G.P.
              SRI.A.RAJESH, SPECIAL G.P (VIGILANCE)



          THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2026,         THE   COURT   ON      THE    SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WA. No.17 of 2026                      :: 3 ::

                                                                   2026:KER:2621

                                 JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment in WP(Crl)

No.1722 of 2025, which was filed by the fourth accused in C.C. No.24

of 2014 and C.C. No.25 of 2014 pending before the Court of the

Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal may

be summarized as follows:

The appellant is a retired teacher. She was arrayed as the

fourth accused in C.C. No.24 of 2014 and C.C. No.25 of 2014, pending

before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge

(Vigilance), Kozhikode. She was charge-sheeted for offences

punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 465, 471, 468, 477A, and

120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the accused in

the said cases is that accused Nos.1 to 14, while working as Teachers

at Thodannur U.P. School during the academic years 1995-96 and

1996-97, being public servants, abused their official positions by

hatching a criminal conspiracy. In pursuance of the said conspiracy,

they allegedly forged and falsified school records, made bogus

admissions using forged documents in respect of 56 students, and

marked false attendance in the attendance registers so as to inflate

the student roll strength of the school. The fraudulent acts were WA. No.17 of 2026 :: 4 ::

2026:KER:2621

allegedly committed with the intention of avoiding division fall and

thereby retaining the posts of teachers, causing financial loss to the

Government. It is further alleged that, as a consequence of the

fraudulent acts, the accused teachers drew salary and allowances to

which they were not entitled. According to the prosecution, an amount

of Rs.3,09,130/- towards pay and allowances of four teachers who

were artificially retained by reckoning bogus admissions, and

Rs.510.50/- towards maintenance grant allotted to Thodannur U. P.

School, aggregating to Rs.3,09,641/-, was misappropriated by the

accused.

3. After submission of the final report, the learned Special

Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode, after hearing both sides, framed written

charges against all the accused, including the appellant, and the case

was posted for trial. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court

by filing a writ petition challenging the validity of the sanction order

issued under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, upholding the

sanction order. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present writ

appeal has been preferred.

4. As is evident from the records, the appellant, who is alleged

to be a public servant, is facing serious allegations under both the

Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. There are

specific allegations that the appellant, while working as a teacher in

an aided school, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other WA. No.17 of 2026 :: 5 ::

2026:KER:2621

accused, forged documents, made bogus admissions, falsified

attendance registers, and thereby obtained pecuniary advantage. It is

alleged that these acts were committed to secure unlawful gain and to

avoid division fall by artificially inflating the number of students in the

school. The further allegation that substantial monetary loss was

caused to the Government aggravates the seriousness of the matter.

5. It is also evident from the records that the case was

registered in the year 2002, and the alleged incidents occurred in the

year 1997. After investigation, the final report was filed only in the

year 2014. The sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act was accorded on 25.11.2013. Thus, the

case has been pending for more than two decades. Further, the

appellant had approached this Court earlier through Crl.M.C.No.5604

of 2015 seeking to quash the prosecution initiated against her before

the Special Court. The said petition was dismissed by a learned Single

Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 27.02.2019. Though the

learned Judge had reserved the liberty of the appellant to seek a

discharge before the trial court, the appellant chose not to take

recourse to such action till date.

6. The learned Single Judge has found that Ext.P3 sanction (in

writ petition) was issued by the competent authority, namely the

Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode, after due application of

mind and upon verification of the prosecution records. We find no

reason to differ from the said finding.

 WA. No.17 of 2026                  :: 6 ::

                                                           2026:KER:2621

7. Moreover, charge has already been framed, and the case is

now posted for trial before the Special Court. It was immediately prior

to the commencement of the examination of witnesses that the

appellant approached this Court with a Writ Petition challenging the

sanction order. In these circumstances, it cannot be overlooked that

the attempt appears to be one aimed at further protracting the

proceedings, which cannot be permitted, especially in a matter

pending for over two decades. If the appellant has any subsisting

grievance regarding the validity of the sanction, the same can be

examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage on the basis of

evidence. In view of this, we are not inclined to go into the merits of

the matter at this stage.

In the light of the above discussion, we find no reason to

interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

JOBIN SEBASTIAN JUDGE ANS