'Suspension Cannot Be A Form Of Punishment'; CAT Orders Reinstatement Of Ex- Kerala Vigilance Director Jacob Thomas IPS [Read Judgment]

In a set back to the LDF government in Kerala, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam bench on Monday set aside the suspension of Jacob Thomas IPS, former Vigilance Director and ordered his reinstatement.

If the Government does not find him fit to work in police force due to the nature of allegations against him, he should be accommodated in any other post of the rank equivalent to Director General of Police, ordered the bench. 

The direction was passed on an application filed by Thomas challenging his suspension from service ordered on December 12, 2018. The government had suspended him on allegations of corruption in procurement of cutter suction dredger when he was the Director of Ports (DoP) during the 2010-11 period. He was placed under suspension in December 2017 on a different charge, and a year after its expiry, the suspension order impugned in the application was issued.

Taking note of the facts, the Tribunal bench of Ashish Kalia, Judicial Member, and E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Administrative member observed :

"The circumstances of the case lead us to the conclusion that continuance of the suspension period is not necessary, if the intention of the State Government is solely to get at the truth of the allegations"

Jacob Thomas, who has positioned himself as a whistle blower, alleged that the suspension was motivated by personal vendetta of high ranking officials of the Kerala Government for the anti-corruption measures implemented by him.  Advocate C Unnikrishnan, the counsel for Thomas, pointed out that the Quick Verification done by the Vigilance Department could not find any impropriety in his actions. Later, the Vigilance Court, Muvattupuzha also declined to order probe against him after finding no substance in the allegations.

Despite all that, the Government placed him under suspension on December 12, after ordering detailed probe into allegations, exactly a year after his earlier suspension on a different charge came to end, submitted the counsel.

The State Government submitted that Thomas had committed grave irregularities during his term as Director of Ports such as modification of specifications of the machinery to suit one supplier, possible sharing of information with the said supplier two months before floating of Tender, deliberate amendment of specifications in order to help the private supplier leading to escalation of cost, floating of Global Tender for a purchase beyond his administrative/financial powers etc.

The CAT bench acknowledged that the charges were grave. However, it took into account the fact that the allegations pertained to incidents of 2011, and the Government have after that thought it fit to promote Thomas as Additional Director General of Police and make him Head of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau with the rank of Director General of Police. The probe has also not made much progress, the CAT observed.

"The Rules prescribe that in a corruption case an officer can be kept under suspension for a period not exceeding two years, but the same Rules cannot be interpreted to imply that an officer shall be kept under suspension for two years. While admitting that the charges are indeed very grave, we should also not lose sight of the fact that these pertain to a period several years ago, during which time the Government thought it fit to promote him as Additional Director General of Police and make him Head of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, according him rank of Director General of Police.

Referring to the SC verdict in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India,  the bench observed :

"It is trite law that suspension cannot take the form of punishment. Suspension from service of an employee is solely to be resorted to in order to facilitate an impartial inquiry. The purpose clearly is to ensure that the employee is not in a position to influence the inquiry once he resumes his duties. But the line between a justified suspension from service and a suspension instituted as a measure of harassment is indeed a thin one."

Based on the totality of circumstances, the Tribunal observed :

"We see little chance of the officer thwarting the probe, if he is reinstated in service. If it is the case that the officer is not found fit to work in the police force or its associated branches, the Government should consider accommodating him in any other post of equivalent rank. Mechanically ordering continuance of the suspension period brings no credit to a model employer."

Jacob Thomas, who came to be pictured as an anti-corruption crusader for his involvement in the probe in bar scam during the previous UDF government, was appointed as Director Vigilance and Anti-corruption after the Pinarayi Vijayan government came to power in 2016.

When the High Court of Kerala quashed few vigilance cases registered by him, he levelled allegations against sitting judges, which led to the Court initiating contempt action against him. The proceedings were later stayed by the Supreme Court.

Click here to download judgment

Read Judgment