Thiruvananthapuram: Perhaps in a first in the state’s history, IAS officers in Kerala decided to go on mass casual leave on Monday to protest against the Vigilance director’s “abuse of power” and registration of cases against senior civil servants.
The decision was taken at a meeting held here, which was attended by many officers, including senior bureaucrats. A note circulated after the meeting gave a detailed account of circumstances that have led to the mass leave decision.
The note: “We are deeply aggrieved and saddened that such an officer (Vigilance director Jacob Thomas), whose integrity is prima facie doubtful and not beyond suspicion, is allowed to sit in judgement as vigilance director on the conduct of other civil servants.
“We are requesting our colleagues of the Kerala IAS Association to avail one day’s casual leave on January 9, 2017 to express our sadness, frustration and professional dissatisfaction and to show our solidarity with our aggrieved colleges, in allowing the present vigilance director to continue abusing his powers.
While doing so we request all officers who are attending to emergency duties of law and order or other critical duties particularly in the post of district collector and sub collectors to be in their offices and attend to their work while expressing their solidarity with this sentiment by availing of one day’s casual leave.
We are also requesting the president of Kerala IAS Association to draft an appropriate memorandum on the basis of the sentiments expressed above and submit the same to the Chief Minister for his kind and urgent attention.
We are also requesting the president of Kerala IAS Association to seek an appointment with Chief Minister to meet him and submit our grievances.
Several officers of the IAS in Kerala state assembled on January 7, 2017 at 6.30 pm in the wake of the disturbing developments that affect the morale of the civil service, on account of the abuse of power on the part of the vigilance director and anti corruption bureau.
Referring to the vigilance registering a FIR against additional chief secretary Paul Antony, the note said;''the latest case was on January 6 when a senior colleague with exemplary credentials was implicated as the third accused in a case involving the appointment of a relative of a minister as managing director of a corporation. In this instance the officer has implemented the written instructions of his minister in accordance with the circular No 25208/D2/09/ID dated 15.2.2010 under the Rules of Business that confers sole powers of such appointments in the industries department to the minster. We are unable to understand how obeying the written instructions of a minister , which is not in violation of any Act or statute can be deemed illegal and how such an officer can be implicated in a criminal case.
We the officers who have reason to believe that the action by the vigilance director against our senior colleague was motivated in vindictive retaliation primarily due to the fact that he took the view that the arrest of Mr Padmakumar former MD Malabar Cements Ltd was in gross violation of all legal norms and principles of natural justice.
In the past few months there have been other instances when the vigilance director had unleashed vindictive actions against officers who have either pointed out his illegal misdoings or questioned his powers to the take the law into his hands. In one case the vigilance director has reopened a case where the departmental enquiry had already been conducted and had filed an FIR against the officer. In some of these cases, the petition themselves have been filed by persons with very questionable background or where they themselves are accused in grievous crime cases.
We are also aggrieved by the fact that even while the vigilance director is allowed to violate principles of natural justice and abuse of his power, government is not taking any action to restrain the illegal actions of the vigilance director as seem from the following;
1. We understand that despite the legal advise of the law secretary, views of the industries secretary and the chief secretary that the vigilance director violated basic principles laid down by the Supreme Court on arrest in the case of Mr Padmakumar former MD of Malabar Cements, government have decided to protect the director without even assigning any valid reason.
2. We understand that the government has decided to accord legal protection to the vigilance director in a case of violation of all India services conduct rules , where he has accepted private employment and received remuneration unauthorisedly, simply on the basis of an undertaking that he has repaid the same to the private employer.
3. We understand that there are several files which establish clearly that the vigilance director while working as director of ports has caused the loss of an amount of approximately Rs 35 - 50 crores to government. We sadly observe that ironically this amount is much more than the value reported in the media on any case that is currently under the investigation of the vigilance department after the present vigilance director has taken charge. Yet no steps have been taken by government to take action under law against the vigilance director for these serious financial offences.
4. We also understand that a few of the above investigation reports in the cases in which the vigilance director is involved directly, implicates him in several grievous offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Yet, we regretfully observe that he has been afforded protection by government for the past several months without any action on the part of government.
5. There were several media reports which suggest the involvement of the vigilance director in the encroachment of over 150 acres of forest land in ecologically sensitive areas of Karnataka, held in the name of a close relative of the vigilance director. Despite the fact that this property is part of his declared annual property statement, government has not taken any step to eek his explanation on his involvement in the illegal acquisition and retention of the forest land.
6. We understand that there is a petition pending before government that has alleged that the declared assets of the current vigilance director by his own admission is in the order of Rs 35-40 crore and that these assets are disproportionate to his or his family members known sources of income. Ironically government has not even called for the explanation of the vigilance director so far to prove the sources of financing for these assets while he himself is allowed to charge cases of disproportionate assets in gross abuse of power.
