Vigilance to close case against EP Jayara
Mr Jayarajan had to quit as the industries minister in November following the controversy.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has decided to drop the nepotism case against CPM central committee member and former minister E.P. Jayarajan maintaining that the appointment of his nephew was not in violation of norms, and neither he nor other accused made any pecuniary advantage.
Apart from Mr Jayarajan, his nephew P.K. Sudheer Nambiar, who is also the son of CPM lawmaker P.K. Sreemathi, and additional chief secretary (industries) Paul Antony were the defendants in the case registered in January. Mr Jayarajan had to quit as the industries minister in November following the controversy.
Special Investigation Unit II of the VACB that probed the case will be filing a closure report at the Vigilance special court here in a day or two. A report in this regard would also be submitted to the High Court considering a petition of Mr Jayarajan seeking to quash it.
According to Vigilance sources, the decision to appoint Mr Nambiar as Kerala State Industrial Enterprises (KSIE) managing director did not amount to any violation of articles of association or bylaws of KSIE, which is a state public sector undertaking.
The decision to appoint him was also cancelled before executing it. Hence its legal adviser C.C. Augustine recommended the closure of the case.
Deccan Chronicle had earlier reported that the vigilance might be closing the case as the HC stayed the investigation considering the contention of the government as well as Mr Jayarajan that there was no corruption especially since the decision was revoked immediately.
The VACB, which initially maintained that the minister directed to appoint him overlooking a selection process, also changed its stand later on.
Meanwhile, Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala alleged that the government was trying to give a clean chit to Mr Jayarajan by misusing the vigilance even as the CPM had earlier taken action against him for nepotism.
The VACB had filed the case against him based on a petition by Mr Chennithala, and hence he may challenge the closure report in the court.