Former Kerala Minister KT Jaleel Moves Supreme Court Against HC's Dismissal Of Challenge To Lokayukta Order Which Led To His Resignation

Seeking an interim ex parte stay, it has been argued that the High Court has erred in ignoring the departure from the mandatory procedures that are required to be complied with under the Lokayukta Act.

Jaleel in his plea has contended that under Section 9, if the Lokayukta intends to proceed with a complaint after making a Preliminary Enquiry, it must carry out an Investigation.

"In this case, even up to the date when arguments were finally heard, the case was still at the stage of Preliminary Enquiry as is proven by the Causelists that are annexed. Thus, no investigation as mandated by law has been conducted," the former Minister has also contended to substantiate his contention.

It has also been averred that the Preliminary Enquiry dated 05.02.2020 was not completed nor was any preliminary report prepared and that a final report was passed only on the basis of the chronology of events as per the complaint, which violated the principles of natural justice enshrined in Article 14.

"Even though the proceedings before the Lokayukta are deemed to be judicial proceedings under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Lokayukta Act, no opportunity was given to the parties to adduce evidence on affidavits or to examine witnesses or documents to substantiate their contentions," plea also contends.

Averments In The Plea Against Report of the Kerala Lok Ayukta

Averring grave errors in the Report of the Kerala Lok Ayukta, Jaleel in his plea has contended that:

1. The two additional qualifications were approved by the Chief Minister and notified by the Government in August 2016 because candidates were not available. In addition, even though the GM vacancies were advertised in 2016 itself and Adeeb had applied, he had not participated in the interview and hence not appointed.
2. The decision of the Board of KSMDFC of 16.07.2018 to delegate the selection of GMs to the Managing Director finds no place in the List of Dates that forms the core of Para 22. The Petitioner had no role to play in this decision of the Board, which would eventually lead to the appointment of Adeeb.
3. The letter of the MD forwarding Adeeb's application to the Government specifically says that he is "a fit candidate for the post of General Manager on deputation". Yet, the Lok Ayukta insists that this is not a recommendation. Here also the Petitioner has no role.
4. The Lok Ayukta claims that the predecessors Sherafudeen and Faisal Muneer were both appointed by the Director Board but that Adeeb was appointed by the Government itself. This is wholly untrue as all 3 G.O.s of Sherafudeen dt.29.1.2014, of Faisal Muneer dt.5.5.2015 and of Adeeb dt.1.9.2018 employ the identical phrase – "Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to accord sanction to appoint".
5. The Lok Ayukta repeatedly observes that the Director Board did not recommend or appoint Adeeb. This erroneous observation is in ignorance of the decision of the Board of 16.7.2018 to delegate the selection of GMs to the Managing Director. Thereafter, it is but natural that the Director Board would not retain a role that had been delegated.

Kerala High Court Judgment

A division bench comprising Justices PB Suresh Kumar and K Babu on April 20, 2021 had affirmed the Lok Ayukta report, stating that Jaleel had not made out any ground for interference in the final opinion formulated by the Lok Ayukta in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Finding that the Lok Ayukta had acted within the scope of its powers when it arrived at its conclusion, the Court emphasized that only errors of fact which had a direct nexus with the decision-making process could be interfered with, rather than an error that affected the merit.

"..this being a proceedings for judicial review, the court could examine an error of fact touching the merit of decision only if it has a direct nexus to the decision making process. Be that as it may, the formation of an opinion on the facts is a subjective matter and if an opinion is formed based on the relevant materials, so long as the authority was acting within the scope of its powers, however meagre the materials be, the courts should not and will not interfere with the opinion formed in exercise of judicial review," the Division Bench held.

Findings of Report of the Kerala Lok Ayukta

Finding K T Jaleel, Minister for Higher Education and Minority Welfare, guilty of nepotism, abuse of power and favouritism, Kerala Lok Ayukta had held that Jaleel violated his oath of office by giving government appointment to his second cousin by altering norms.

Significantly, the Lok Ayukta had also made a declaration under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act that Jaleel should not continue as a Member of the Council of Ministers. Such a declaration has to be accepted by the Chief Minister under Section 14 of the Act. On acceptance by the Chief Minister, the Minister had to resign from the office as per Section 14(2)(i) of the Act.

"The action of the 2nd respondent(Jaleel) was actuated in discharge of his function as a Minster by personal interest to favour his own second cousin. It amounted to favouritism and nepotism and lack of integrity in his capacity as a Minister.

The conduct of the 2nd respondent also violated the oath of the office he had taken as a Minister to discharge his duties"without fear or favour, affection or ill-will", the order passed by the bench of Justices Cyriac Joseph(former Supreme Court judge) and Harun-Ul-Rashid (former High Court judge) held.

Background

The matter related to the appointment of Jaleel's cousin KT Adeeb as General Manager in the Kerala State Minorities Development Finance Corporation Limited.

The Lok Ayukta found that Jaleel took a decision as a Minister to change the qualifications for the post to add "B.Tech with PGDBA" to make his relative eligible. This decision was without any proposal or suggestion from the Corporation. But for this change of qualification, Adeeb would not have been eligible to apply for the post.

The Lok Ayukta held that it amounted to an abuse of the Minister's position. It ordered that the report be submitted before the Chief Minister for taking necessary action as per Section 14 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.

Case Title: Dr. K T Jaleel v. V K Muhammed Shafi & Ors.