WP CRL.(MD)/4838/2026 of K. Karunanidhi Vs The Director on 29 September 2026

O R D E R

The ex-employee as Administrative Office Assistant of Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi, which is a Society, comeup with the Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct proper enquiry and to proceed further in accordance with law based on his complaint dated 24.11.2025, as per the procedure laid down in G.O.(Ms.)No.173, Personnel and

Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 19.12.2018 within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

2. The bare facts just and necessary necessary to dispose this case is as that the petitioner worked as an Administrative Office Assistant in the self financing section of Yadava College (Co-Educational), Thirupalai, Madurai, run by the Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi from 2005. Since 2012 onwards, the college administration was managed by the Government Authorities. In the year 2023, the Retired Judge of this Court Mr. Justice S. Rajeswaran was appointed as Administrator of Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi by this Court. He took charge of the administration and he opened eight different accounts and deposited a sum of Rs.16,35,45,368/- (Rupees Sixteen Crore Thirty Five Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight Only). On and from 10.09.2023 onwards, the college Administration was functioning under the newly elected members of Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi. One R.V.N.Kannan, the Secretary of Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi, has been acting unlawful and arbitrary against the functioning of the college administration. It is learnt by the petitioner that eight fixed deposits for a sum of Rs.l6,35,45,368/- (Rupees Sixteen Crore Thirty Five Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) was fore-closed by the said Secretary, without the knowledge of the Executive Committee as well as General Body Members of the sadi Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi. That Secretary also committed other illegalities and corruption in the appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff in the said College. In this regard, the petitioner made a complaint dated 24.11.2025 narrating the above facts before the respondents 1 and 2. Thereafter, the first respondent sent a dated 12.12.2025 to the petitioner that the complaint was forwarded to the third respondent for necessary action, as per G.O. (Ms.)No.l73, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 19.12.2018, laid down the procedure to be adopted by the investigating agencies while dealing with the complaints under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The procedure to be undertaken as per Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation agency initially have to take up a factual verification in the first instance and weed out baseless, vague, frivolous and vexatious complaints. After factual verification, if a complaint contains verifiable allegations, it shall be verified with the complainant. But in this case, no steps have been taken by the respondents 1 and 2, wherein no factual verification conducted and the petitioner was not called upon any enquiry sofar, instead, the respondents 1 and 2 acted as post office by forwarding the petitioner's complaint to the third respondent for verification. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard Mrs.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Susikumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.J.Bharathan, learned Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.A.Sivasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader for the third respondent. Perused the records. Considered the submission raised by both sides.

4. When the petition was moved before this Court on 27.08.2026, taking note of the fact already been mentioned, the respondents 1 and 2 were directed to persuade the third respondent to sent a source report and after receiving the source report, the respondents 1 and 2 have to proceed further. By an order dated 07.09.2026, it reveals that the third respondent conducted enquiry and source report has been submitted to the respondents 1 and 2 by report dated 02.09.2029. Recording the same, it was ordered that the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed based on the facts of the complaint and the source report received from the third respondent.

5. When the matter was listed for arguments on 29.09.2029, on behalf of the third respondent, Mr.J.Bharathan, learned Additional

Advocate General, submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable, wherein, the former employee of Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi has no locus standi to file a complaint concerning the grant of financial aid extended to Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi. The petitioner was suspended from service and subsequently dismissed from employment at Yadavar College, which is managed by Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi. Having been removed from service, the petitioner has initiated the present complaint out of a personal and vindictive motive. Therefore, the complaint filed and forwarded by the petitioner is not maintainable. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. He further submitted that as per the enquiry made by the third respondent with his subordinate at Regional Director of College Education, the complaint of the petitioner is false and based on that report, the third respondent submitted a source report dated 02.09.2026 to the respondents 1 and 2. Having the third respondent submitted report to the respondents 1 and 2, now the respondents 1 and 2 have to take a final decision. Therefore, he submitted that the Court may pass any orders at this case.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submit that it is true that the third respondent submitted a report as per G.O. (Ms.)No.l73, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 19.12.2018 and Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, then the respondents 1 and 2 have to enquire the matter and dispose within a period of two months as per the Vigilance Manual Rules No.27 and he assured that the respondents 1 and 2 would take a decision at the earliest, having the petitioner was summoned and examined in some time.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after this Court order, the third respondent submitted report dated 02.09.2026 and thereafter the police summoned the petitioner for enquiry, in which the petitioner attended the enquiry on four times, viz., 12.09.2026, 19.09.2026, 23.09.2026 and 25.09.2026, and given statement regarding the complaint facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred G.O. (Ms.) No.l73, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 19.12.2018 and Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in G.Venkateshan v. The Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi & Ors. in W.P.(MD)No.5339 of 2026 by order dated 25.02.2026, in which in paragraph No.6 of the said order, this Court elaborately discussed about the duties and responsibilities of the Vigilance Department and also the source of report Department. In that case, having the Vigilance Department did not take any steps and also Source Department of University has not given report on the complaint of the petitioner therein, enquiry was transferred to CBI. The paragraph No.6 of the decision cited by the petitioner is extracted as follows for better clarity: “G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 19.12.2018 issued by the Government laying down Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), where Section 17(A)(1) of the Act is applicable, clearly directs the investigating agency to collect source report relating to offence alleged to have been committed under the Act on receipt of complaints/allegations. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption shall initially take up a factual verification in the first instance and shall weed out baseless, vague, frivolous and vexatious complaints. Factual verification means not addressing the employer alone and wait for their response. The investigating officer ought to have collected materials through other sources also. In this case, we find that the Superintendent of Police, DVAC, who has received the complaint, has not undertaken the said exercise. Further it is also pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 17A mandates that authority concerned (the University in this case) should convey its decision to permit for an enquiry/ investigation/ inquiry within a period of three months, which shall be extended for a further period of one month recording the reason in writing. We find, in this case, a serious lapse on duty by the DVAC as well

as attempt by the University administration to probe into the serious allegations made against the staff of the University.”

9. Having cited the said decision, this Court in a strong word recorded in that cited case that the Vigilance Department shall initially take up a factual verification and shall weed out baseless, vague, frivolous and vexatious complaints. Factual verification means not addressing the employer alone and wait for response, the investigating officer ought to have collected materials through other sources also. Having the Vigilance Department has not undertaken the said exercise and further as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, mandates that authority concerned shall convey its decision to permit for an enquiry within a period of three months, subject to one month extension and no report was submitted by the University, thereby, enquiry was transferred.

10. In our case, as per the records disclose, the petitioner made a complaint dated 24.11.2025 to the respondents 1 and 2 and also the District Collector, Madurai, making such a financial irregularities and illegalities in the Yadavar Kalvi Nidhi done by its Secretary R.V.N.Kannan. Having it was received by the Vigilance Department, they wrote a letter dated 12.12.2025 to the petitioner informing that his complaint dated 24.11.2025 was forwarded to the third respondent for necessary action on their end for the subject matter.

11. On reading the G.O.(Ms.)No.l73, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 19.12.2018 and Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench cited above, it is the duty of the Vigilance Department to go for source report on the complaint facts by waiting the Department report about the allegation made against the officials. In our case, no such source report collected by the Vigilance Department and a simply forwarded the complaint of the petitioner for necessary action at the end of the third respondent, which is not correct so, wherein the respondents 1 and 2 have violated the G.O.(Ms.)No.l73, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 19.12.2018 and Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

12. Though the Vigilance Department forwarded the petitioner's complaint dated 24.11.2025 to the third respondent on 12.12.2025, the third respondent did not submit his report for nearly nine months, which shows how the public Government officials were acting to abolish the bribery and corruption in public life. After intervention of this Court by order dated 27.08.2026 only as the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that third respondent would submit the report within a week and thereafter the third respondent submitted a report on 02.09.2026. Like that the Vigilance Department not attended the petitioner's complaint dated 27.11.2025 and until the third respondent submitted a report dated 02.09.2026, in which, Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and also G.O.(Ms.)No.l73, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 19.12.2018 has been followed coupled with the Vigilance Manual maintained by the Vigilance Department.

13. The argument of the learned Additional Advocate General is that the petitioner was dismissed from service and, therefore, has no locus to question the administration of Yadava Kalvi Nidhi, wherein, as per the submission, the Government is providing aid to Yadavar College. Though the petitioner worked in the self-financing College run by the Yadavar College, he is nevertheless a member of the public. The public has the right to question corruption and to question Government offices or Government-aided institutions. Therefore, the petitioner has right to question the corruption taken place in any of the public authority. Though the third respondent submitted that there is no financial irregularities, but, the Vigilance has to enquire the matter in detail and proceed further.

14. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that after receipt of the report from the third respondent, now the Vigilance Department enquired the petitioner in four times and also enquired other witnesses, altogether 15 witness. Memo filed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) shows that 15 witnesses examined. As per the short one-sheet memo filed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), signed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Madurai, revealed that the petitioner’s complaint, which was submitted on 24.11.2025, was registered only on 16.09.2026.

15. The inordinate delay in registering the complaint prima facie indicates that the Vigilance Department has not adhered to the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, G.O.(Ms.) No.173 and the Vigilance Manual governing the receipt and registration of complaints. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner initially attempted to contend that the enquiry may be transferred to some other agency, in the absence of any specific prayer to that effect, she restricted her submission to seeking a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) assured that there is a delay on the part of the Vigilance Department and now the petitioner's complaint has been registered in Preliminary Enquiry in PE 107/2026/EDN/MU, dated 16.09.2026, as per the Vigilance Manual, they have to decide the enquiry not later than two months. Thereby, the respondents 1 and 2 shall finalise the enquiry and take a better decision within a period of two months from 16.09.2026 and to pass suitable direction in this regard.

16. Looking into the facts, submission of both sides, G.O. (Ms.)No.l73, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 19.12.2018 and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court extracted above, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to decide the petitioner's complaint on preliminary enquiry within two months from 16.09.2026 and proceed further. The action taken on the petitioner’s complaint shall be intimated to the petitioner, along with the reasons for the decision taken. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the decision so taken, he is at liberty to agitate the same further in the manner known to law.

17. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Internet:Yes 06.10.2026 Index:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No LS To

1. The Director Office of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, M.K.N. Road, Alandur, Chennai-16.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Alandur, Chennai-16.

3. The Director of Collegiate Education, Institute of Advanced Study in Education Campus, No.577, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Note: Issue order copy on 06.10.2026

DR. P. MURUGAN, J. LS Pre-delivery Order made in W.P.Crl.(MD) No. 4838 of 2026 06.10.2026