The Lok Ayukta on Friday referred the case against the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the former Ministers alleging misuse of amount in the Chief Minister Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF) to a larger bench.
According to R.S. Sasikumar’s complaint, the State Government’s decisions in:
first, providing financial assistance to the family of late Uzhavoor Vijayan by sanctioning a total amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the CMDRF towards his medical expenses and the educational expenses of his two children;
second, sanctioning necessary amount from the CMDRF for clearing the arrears of loans taken by late Advocate K.K.Ramachandran Nair, MLA, from Government recognized institutions and providing a government job to his son; and
Finally, the CMDRF sanctioned a financial help of Rs.20 lakhs to the legal heirs of late Civil Police Officer P. Praveen, who died in a motor accident while conducting escort duty for the late Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, former Home Minister and State Secretary of CPI (M) were actuated by corruption, favouritism, and nepotism. It was also claimed that the respondents lacked integrity in carrying out their responsibilities as public servants.
A division bench comprising Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice Harun-Ul-Rasheed observed that because there was a difference of opinion on whether the actions of the Chief Minister and the then-Ministers in taking the impugned decisions as members of the Cabinet could be subjected to investigation under the provisions of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, and on the merits of the allegations, the matter would have to be placed for investigation by the Lok Ayukta and both the Upa-Lok Ayuktas together as required under Section 7(1) of the Act, 1999.
According to the complainant, there were several other occasions when security personnel providing security to Ministers and other protectees were injured, but no financial assistance from the CMDRF was provided to such families.
He has also claimed that the financial assistance given to the late Praveen’s family was solely because he was a member of the security team that escorted the then CPI State Secretary (M). Furthermore, it has been claimed that the law did not provide pilot vehicles to the State Secretary of the CPI(M), and that the duty performed in this regard could not be considered as duty performed by a public servant in due discharge of his duty.
It has been argued that there are guidelines in place for the administration of the CMDRF that clearly state that financial assistance from the CMDRF cannot be given for such purposes.
The complainant also claims that, according to the guidelines, the annual income of those seeking financial assistance should not exceed Rs.1 lakh, and that the contested decisions were made in violation of those guidelines. The decisions were also made without regard to any application made in that regard, but as ‘out of agenda’ by the Council of Ministers, violating the CMDRF’s administration guidelines, according to the complaint.
The Lok Ayukta has stated that the case will be heard by a Bench comprised of the Lok Ayukta and both Upa Lok Ayuktas on a date to be determined by it.
