Allegations against Tamil Nadu IGP A K Vishwananthan on accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income were not substantiated, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has concluded and recommended that the state government drop further action against him.
Recording a December 30 letter of the Vigilance Commissioner, containing the recommendation to the state Home Secretary, a division bench of the Madras High Court treated a writ appeal by the police officer as closed "as no further order is necessary."
In the letter, the Commissioner citing a November 21, 2011 report of the DVAC said it was recommended to drop further action against Vishwanathan in respect of "the not substantiated allegation" relating to possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income and acquisition of 500 acres in Kallikudi village in Madurai district.
The acquisition was in the names of some companies in which Vishwanathan's brother, sister-in-law and other 'benamis' were direct stake holders, as detailed in the report.
Originally, the IGP had filed a writ petition before the high court seeking to forbear DVAC and Vigilance and Anti-corruption DSP, Chennai, from conducting any probe against him based on an August 2009 decision taken by the authorities concerned.
Passing orders on the petition, the bench comprising justices Elipe Dharma Rao and N Kirubakaran held that when the competent authority was enquiring the matter, the court could not interfere in the matter of detailed probe and the power was exercised by the authority in accordance with law and the DVAC manual.
It dismissed the petition on July 12, 2010. Hence the present appeal.
The court permitted the DVAC to continue the enquiry. However, it made clear that the enquiry proceedings would be subject to the result of the appeal.
When the appeal came up, the Government Pleader produced a copy of the Commissioner’s letter and submitted that the appeal may be treated as closed.
The Bench said in view of the government's submission, the letter being recorded and an affidavit being filed in this connection, it was treating the appeal as closed as no further order was necessary.
The Bench also closed another petition holding that in view of the order in another writ appeal it was of the opinion that the stage had not yet been set to consider Vishwanathan's challenge to the DVAC manual.
Hence it was treating the writ petition as closed.
DVAC DSP had conducted a detailed enquiry into the allegations against the official.The enquiry revealed that the allegations were not substantiated and hence it was recommended that further action against Vishwanathan be dropped, the Commissioner's letter had said.