Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing a writ petition challenging a compliance report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Vigilance Department, which had concluded that the petitioner's allegations against senior police officer S. Sreejith, IPS, were "false and vexatious."

The petitioner contended that an earlier judgment of the High Court had directed the State authorities to consider his complaints and take an appropriate decision after following due process. In WP(Crl.) 113/ 2026, the petitioner had alleged that S. Sreejith, IPS visited Dubai by availing casual leave without taking permission to go abroad, to participate in the inauguration of a private enterprise.

It was further alleged that enterprise inaugurated was a concern of S. Sreejith. The Court had directed the State to consider the complaint raised by the petitioner and take appropriate directions.

Pursuant to that direction, the Additional Chief Secretary issued a notice requiring the petitioner to appear for what he believed was a joint hearing attended by S. Sreejith, IPS, officer against whom his complaints had been made.

The petitioner declined to attend, stating that requiring him to present his allegations in the presence of the senior police officer was unfair. He expressed willingness to appear independently before the Vigilance authorities and produce all supporting documents.

Despite his absence, the Government submitted a compliance report concluding that the allegations were false and vexatious.

The State argued that no joint hearing had been convened and that the petitioner had simply failed to avail himself of an opportunity for personal hearing.

The Court examined the impugned report and noted that the report expressly referred to the petitioner's refusal to attend a "joint hearing", thereby contradicting the Government's submission that no such joint proceeding had been contemplated.

The Court observed that when serious allegations are raised against an individual, requiring the complainant to present those allegations in the presence of the accused person cannot be recognised as a fair procedure.

“When serious allegations are raised against any person by a complainant, conducting a joint hearing of both of them together could not be recognised as a fair practice, since the complainant has many things to submit before the authority which would be derogating or implicating the other person, so that other party could very well nullify the same. When the opposite party is a Senior Police Officer, the likelihood of doing the said exercise is very much there.” the Court observed.

The Court further found that the procedure adopted had effectively denied the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing. It also noticed that the impugned report did not even disclose the date on which it had been prepared before concluding that the allegations were false and vexatious, a circumstance that further undermined its credibility.

Expressing disapproval of the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, the Court observed that senior government officers are expected to maintain high standards of discipline and fairness, but found that those standards were lacking in the present case.

“It is relevant to note that in Ext.P11 report, the date of making such a report with conclusion that the allegations are false and vexatious could not be found and the same also would show the falsity of the report in one way. In this connection, it is very relevant to note that Sri. Bishwanath Sinha IAS, the present Chief Secretary held the charge of Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Vigilance Department and he had done these things. High discipline and fair practice is expected from Senior Officers of the Government. But the proceedings in the instant case lack the same.” Court observed.

The Court thus set aside the impugned report, and directed the Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Vigilance Department, to afford the petitioner an independent personal hearing in the absence of the officer against whom the allegations were made; reconsider the complaints and pass a fresh decision within three weeks.

The Court further directed to separately consider the subsequent report submitted by the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and report compliance to the Court within the same period.

Case Title: Dipin Edavana v State of Kerala

Case No: WP(Crl.) 1110/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 414

Counsel for Petitioner: K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, N.P. Asha

Counsel for Respondents: Roy Thomas Muvattupuzha (Sr. GP), K. Arjun Venugopal (CGC)