Kerala High Court
A.Malaichamy vs Director on 4 December, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:93863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 45490 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
A.MALAICHAMY
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O ALAGAR, JUNIOR ASSISTANT,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
MANGATTUPARAMBA, DHARMASALA,
KANUL.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT
RESIDING AT PANICKER SANKARAN HOUSE,
MANGAD-ARAYALA MAIN ROAD, MANGAD,
KALLIASSERY.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670562
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
SRI.M.S.VINEETH
SRI.M.VIVEK RABINDRANATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 DIRECTOR
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
MANGATTUPARAMBA, DHARMASALA, KANUL.P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670562
2 DIRECTOR GENERAL
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
NIFT CAMPUS, HAUZ KHAS, NEAR GUL MOHAR PARK,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110016
2025:KER:93863
WP(C) No.45490 of 2025
2
3 CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION
SATARKTA BHAWAN, BLOCK A, G P O COMPLEX,
INA, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 110023
4 N.S. BORA
ENQUIRY OFFICER,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY,
NIFT CAMPUS, HAUZ KHAS, NEAR GUL MOHAR PARK,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110016
BY ADV.
SRI. P.R. AJITH KUMAR, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:93863
WP(C) No.45490 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2025 The petitioner states that he is working as Junior Assistant in National Institute of Fashion Technology, Kannur Campus. The petitioner had made complaints to the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) on 17.08.2024 regarding the corrupt practices of the Director of NIFT, Kannur.
2. The complaint was filed under "Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution"
(PIDPI). "Whistle Blowers" are protected from punitive action under PIDPI Resolution. But, after the complaint of the petitioner, the Director started harassing the petitioner on flimsy grounds. On 22.09.2025, the Director had issued articles of charge to the petitioner. On 10.11.2025, the 4 th respondent was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges by the Director.
2025:KER:93863 WP(C) No.45490 of 2025 4
3. Even though the petitioner approached the CVC against the violation of PIDPI Resolution by request dated 21.11.2025, no action has been taken by the CVC so far. Hence, this writ petition is filed for setting aside Exts.P4 to P6 disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner during the pendency of complaint as per PIDPI Resolution.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel representing the respondents.
5. The petitioner has been issued with Ext.P4 charge sheet. The petitioner would contend that the charge sheet has been issued as the petitioner made complaints to the Vigilance Authorities regarding corrupt conduct of superior officers. As per Ext.P3 Office Order dated 17.05.2024 of the Central Vigilance Commission, no punitive action can be taken by any administrative authority against any person on perceived reasons / suspicion of being "whistle blower". The 2025:KER:93863 WP(C) No.45490 of 2025 5 present issuance of the charge sheet is in gross violation of Ext.P3, contends the counsel for the petitioner.
6. I have perused the pleadings in the writ petition. Ext.P4 memorandum of charge would indicate that the petitioner has been proceeded against for being unauthorisedly absent and leaving Head Quarters without taking prior leave approval from the sanctioning authority. The unauthorised leave is on 29.05.2025, 30.05.2025 and 09.06.2025 to 20.06.2025. The nature of the allegation would show that the charges are independent of any complaint filed by the petitioner against his superiors. If the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent, then the petitioner needs to be proceeded with.
7. If the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had worked on those days or that the petitioner had availed leave on those days, then these are matters which the petitioner has to submit before the enquiry authority. This 2025:KER:93863 WP(C) No.45490 of 2025 6 Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into a factual adjudication in that regard.
The writ petition is therefore misconceived and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk 2025:KER:93863 WP(C) No.45490 of 2025 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 45490 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION DATED 17-8-2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IMTIMATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 4-4-2025 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 17-5-2024 ISSUED BY CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE ISSUED AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 22-9-2025.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINT ORDER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 10-11-2025 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ENQUIRY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11-11-2025 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF TECHNICAL EXAMINER OF CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION DATED 21-11-2025