CHENNAI: The woman inspector attached to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption was suspended based on serious allegations, but the single judge granted her relief without verifying the facts, the State government submitted, based on which the Madras High Court kept the interim stay in abeyance.
Appearing for DVAC, Additional Advocate General Gowtham submitted that inspector G Vimala was suspended following serious allegations, including WhatsApp screenshots allegedly showing her demanding bribe to not proceed with the investigation in a case.
Vimala was a habitual offender but had projected herself as a victim before the single judge, he claimed, adding that the judge granted the stay solely on her submissions without verification of the facts.
Citing the interim stay order, the inspector has already sought reinstatement, said the AAG, adding that it was hence necessary to keep the order in abeyance. Accepting the contention, the bench kept the interim stay in abeyance.
In her writ petition challenging the suspension on allegations of "grave misconduct", Vimala claimed the action against her was directly linked to the FIR she had registered several months earlier against K Rajalakshmi, an inspector with the city police's Anti-Vice Squad.
After she sent a vigilance report to the DVAC Director in December based on information collected against Rajalakshmi, she was directed to prepare a draft FIR alleging that Rajalakshmi possessed movable and immovable assets worth Rs 5.42 crore in her name and in the names of her family members.
The assets disproportionate to her known sources of income grew by 372% in the period of check, she added.
According to Vimala, she obtained approval and registered the FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and later transferred the case to another inspector for further investigation.
She maintained that she acted without personal malice and strictly in accordance with legal procedures and the directions of her superiors.
Claiming that her actions were within the scope of her official duties under the Vigilance Manual, Vimala argued that the suspension order was vague, illegal, and arbitrary.
When the case came up before her, Justice PT Asha had observed that the suspension order appeared to be motivated and directed the DVAC Director and Deputy Director to file their responses to the writ petition.