KOCHI: Observing ‘some forces’ were at work against T P Senkumar after he assumed charge as the state police chief, the Kerala High Court on Friday quashed a Vigilance case against him on a complaint related to granting of a loan while he was managing director of the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation. The order said Senkumar had been in service for over three decades and secured ‘full marks’ in efficiency when he was unceremoniously thrown out of the post of the state police chief.
A Single Judge of the court issued the order on the petition filed by Senkumar challenging the Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Special Court’s directive ordering quick verification on a complaint by CPM leader A J Sukarno.
The complaint alleged Senkumar acted beyond his authority to sanction two loans of Rs10 crore each to a person named Salim. The petitioner submitted two successive governments - first of which was the Left Democratic Front and second by the United Democratic Front - had given him 10 out of 10 on evaluation of efficiency. The present LDF Government came to power on May 25, 2016, and after six days, Senkumar was thrown out of the post of the state police chief. However, the Supreme Court quashed the decision and asked to reinstate him in service in April.
The Vigilance case is to prevent the possibility of him being appointed as the member of Kerala Administrative Tribunal. A committee headed by the Chief Justice of Kerala had recommended him to the post, he submitted.While quashing the complaint against Senkumar and other further proceedings before the Vigilance Court, the Single Judge observed some forces had been at work against the petitioner since he became the state police chief. “The complainant was only a tool in their hands,” the court observed. The court will be failing in its duty if it did not quash the complaint which was filed only to make sure the petitioner was not appointed a member of KAT. The court will be doing a disservice to the cause of justice if it does not put an end to the complaint which is a gross abuse of the process of the court, the order stated.
The court also noted within one month of his removal as the state police chief, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) suo motu ordered an inquiry into the matter. However, the Vigilance Court had found there was no substance in the allegations of corruption against him. Unsatisfied with the findings of the Vigilance, the complainant, who had admittedly political interests, filed complaints one after the other against the petitioner. “The pendency of the complaint was a stumbling block for the appointment of the petitioner as a member of KAT,” the court noted.
The Centre did not take any decision with regard to the appointment of Senkumar as KAT member as several complaints are pending. The government pleader submitted the VACB has not done anything in the inquiry ordered by the Special Judge. The court observed this is what the complainant intended to bring about. This was the situation the complainant desires to continue to exist. “The complainant has got moral, vehement and vociferous support from the government pleader,” the court said. The complainant’s counsel and the government pleader submitted Senkumar should not have approached the court before a case was registered.
The court said the police officer, who was directed to conduct an inquiry, admittedly did nothing till Senkumar filed a petition before the HC on August 27. Therefore, the petitioner could not be blamed for seeking to quash the proceedings.
Time running out
The pendency of complaint alleging corruption causes - in fact had already caused - irreparable injury to Senkumar. A member of an Administrative Tribunal can hold office only for five years from the date on which he/she enters the office. It may be extended by five years. But he cannot hold office after attaining the age of 65. Senkumar had retired at age of 60.