JUDGMENT : The Original Petition, O.P.(Crl) No.452 of 2016, is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the second accused in the cases C.C.Nos.11/2019, 12/2019, 13/2019 and 14/2019, which are pending in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, for quashing the final reports (charge-sheets) filed against him in those cases by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thrissur. 2. The petitions, Crl.M.C.Nos. 2090 of 2020, 2091 of 2020, 2096 of 2020 and 2099 of 2020, are filed by the eighth accused and the petitions, Crl.M.C.Nos. 3569 of 2020, 3574 of 2020, 3577 of 2020 and 3601 of 2020, are filed by the fifth accused in the above cases, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing the final reports (charge-sheets) filed against them in those cases. 3. The accused in all the above cases are the same persons. There are altogether nine accused. The first accused was the Administrator of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The third accused was the Chairman of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Managing Committee'). Accused 2 and 4 to 7 were Members of the Managing Committee. Accused No. 8 was the System Analyst and Accused No.9 was the Executive Engineer (Electrical) in the Devaswom. 4. The documents produced by the parties shall be referred to as they are in O.P.(Crl) No.452 of 2016. 5. The third respondent filed Ext.P14 complaint in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Administrator of the Devaswom and the Members of the Managing Committee. It was alleged in the above complaint that the post of Foreman Grade-I (Electrical and Water Supply) was created by the Managing Committee of which the second accused was a Member and the second accused, who did not have the qualifications to hold that post, was promoted and appointed to that post in violation of the rules and regulations. It was also alleged in the above complaint, that the eighth accused was temporarily appointed to the post of System Analyst, which was actually a post not in existence, without notifying the vacancy and without conducting any examination or interview. It was also alleged in the above complaint, that the eighth accused was temporarily appointed to the post of System Analyst, which was actually a post not in existence, without notifying the vacancy and without conducting any examination or interview. Other allegations were also made in the complaint with regard to appointment of various persons in the Devaswom in violation of the rules and regulations. 6. As per the direction made by the Special Court, the Inspector of Police, VACB, Thrissur conducted a preliminary enquiry (quick verification) into the allegations in Ext.P14 complaint and he submitted Ext.P15 report before the Special Court in which no criminal action was recommended against any of the accused. 7. The Special Court did not accept Ext.P15 report. The Special Court found that the allegations in the complaint disclosed commission of cognizable offence under the Act. Therefore, as per Ext.P16 order, the Special Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thrissur to register a case against the accused and conduct investigation into the allegations in Ext.P14 complaint. 8. Pursuant to the direction made in Ext.P16 order of the Special Court, a case was registered as V.C.No.32/16/TSR under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The second accused then filed the Original Petition, O.P (Crl.) No.452 of 2016, challenging Ext.P16 order passed by the Special Court. 10. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the investigation in the case was completed and four final reports were filed against the nine accused mentioned earlier alleging commission of the above offences by them. 11. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences on the basis of the above four final reports and the cases are pending against the accused in the Special Court as C.C.Nos.11 to 14 of 2019. 12. After filing the final reports, the second accused amended the Original Petition and he has sought the relief of quashing the final reports filed against him. 13. Heard the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Heard also the learned counsel who appeared for the third respondent. 14. 12. After filing the final reports, the second accused amended the Original Petition and he has sought the relief of quashing the final reports filed against him. 13. Heard the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Heard also the learned counsel who appeared for the third respondent. 14. The summary of the allegations against the accused, as stated in Ext.P27 charge-sheet (in C.C.No.11/2019), reads as follows: “A-1 K.Muraleedharan being Guruvayur Devaswom Administrator, A-3 T.V.Chandramohan being Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee Chairman, A-4 Madhusoodhanan Pillai, A-5 Thushar Vellapilly, A-6 M.Janardhanan and A-7 Sivasankaran are being the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee Members and A-9 O.Sankaranarayan then Executive Engineer (Electrical) with an intention to get a promotion to A-2, and as per the direction of A-2 to A-7, A-9 submitted a report to create 3 new posts in Guruvayur Devaswom Electrical Wing including the post of Foreman Grade-I, and since A-2 had no technical qualification, A-9 prescribed no technical qualification for the post of Foreman Grade-I, A-2 to A-7 who were the Administrative Committee Members of Devaswom illegally resolved to create 3 new posts including Foreman Grade-I in the electrical & water supply wing and the post of 'System Analyst' in the Computer wing of Guruvayur Devaswom, during the period from August -2012 to August -2013 conspired together with A-2 N.Raju and with an intention to facilitate promotion for A-2 N.Raju, abused their official position as public servants and violated Guruvayur Devaswom Act 1978, Guruvayur Devaswom Rules and Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulation,1983 and also by again violating Honourable Kerala High Court Judgment in O.P.No.15832/1993-I & 5900/97 dated 05.08.1999, illegally created new post of 'Foreman Gr-1' in the Devswom Electrical & Water supply wing, without putting the recommendation to create the post for the study of the Devaswom Expert Committee and fixed qualifications to the new post so as to enable A2 to get the promotion, and also violated Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations-2010 Chapter-II Section 3(3), and Circular No-B1 17175/2001/CEI/18/09/2004 of Chief Electricity Inspector Kerala, A-2 N.Raju was illegally promoted to the post of Foreman Grade-1 on 25/05/2013 as he had no technical qualification for the post, and posted A-2 as Power House In Charge in Guruvayur Devaswom Electrical Wing and by the promotion A-2 got illegal pecuniary advantage of 2 additional increments of Rs.440/-each. Sri.V.M.Gopalamenon who was the Guruvayur Devaswom Commissioner who sanctioned to create the 3 posts namely Foreman Grade-1, Storekeeper and Head Draftsman has clearly specified in his order to include these posts in the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations and to promote eligible persons to these posts. But, the Managing Committee and Administrator made appointment to these posts without taking any steps to include these posts in the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations (Ext-B2 page 443-444). But, A-1 to A-7 had not taken any steps to include these posts in the employee's regulations. As a result of it, A-2 got illegal pecuniary advantage through the promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-1 to an extent of Rs.11,993/-. The promotion list was not submitted to the Commissioner for confirmation. Hence, any abuse of power or misconduct from the part of Sri.V.M.Gopalamenon is not revealed in the investigation, hence he is deleted in the array of accused (specified in the FIR). The array of accused is changed as (A1) K.Muraleedharan former Guruvayur Devaswom Administrator (A-2 in FIR), (A2) N.Raju, former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-3 in FIR), (A3) T.V.Chandramohan former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee Chairman (A-4 in FIR), (A4) Madhusoodhanan Pilla, former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-5 in FIR), (A5) Thushar Vellappilly former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-6 in FIR), (A6) M.Janardhanan former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-7 in FIR), (A7) K.Sivasankaran (former Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee member (A-8 in FIR), (A8) K.Renjith System Analyst, Guruvayur Devaswom (Accused additionally arrayed during the investigation) and (A9) O.Sanakaranarayanan Former Executive Engineer (Electrical) Guruvayur Devaswom, accused additionally arrayed during the investigation). Similarly, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-7 abused their official position as public servants and conspired together with A-8 K.Renjith, violated Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 & Rules and Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulation, 1983, without publishing any notifications in the medias regarding the vacancy of System Analyst, without conducting any test or interview, appointed A-8 K.Renjith as System Analyst in Guruvayur Devaswom for one year with a monthly salary of Rs.35,000/-and extended his service after the completion of one year violating the order of the Devaswom Commissioner to terminate the service of A-8 who obtained illegal pecuniary gain of Rs.2,99,821/-. By effecting these illegal appointments, the accused persons A2 & A8 obtained illegal pecuniary gain to the extent of Rs.3,09,939/-and incurred huge financial loss of the same extent during 2013-14 financial year to the Guruvayur Devaswom Board and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988 and Sec.120(B) IPC.” 15. The allegations against the accused in Exts. P27, P28, P29 and P30 charge-sheets (in C.C.No.11 to 14 of 2019) are the same as above except the fact that they relate to the salary and allowances received by accused 2 and 8 during four separate financial years. 16. Sri. S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel who appeared for two of the petitioners (A2 and A8), contended that the Managing Committee has got absolute power to create new posts in the Devaswom. Learned senior counsel submitted that the new posts were created and appointments and promotions to the new posts were made not in violation of any rules and regulations. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the promotion of the second accused to the newly created post of Foreman Grade-I was challenged before this Court and it was found that the second accused did not have the requisite qualification to hold the post of Foreman Grade-I and this Court directed the Devaswom to revert him to a lower post but this Court also directed to protect the pay and allowances given to him in the new post. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the judgment of this Court in that regard was upheld by the Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel further contended that, no valuable thing or pecuniary advantage was obtained by any person in connection with the promotion given to the second accused to the post of Foreman Grade-I and therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act are not attracted on the allegations raised against the accused. 17. Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned counsel for one of the petitioners (A5) made similar submissions as above. 18. Sri.M.A.Abdul Hakeem, learned counsel for the third respondent, refuted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that the creation of the post of Foreman Grade-I was made and the qualification for that post was fixed by the Managing Committee with the sole intention to accommodate the second accused in such a post. 18. Sri.M.A.Abdul Hakeem, learned counsel for the third respondent, refuted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that the creation of the post of Foreman Grade-I was made and the qualification for that post was fixed by the Managing Committee with the sole intention to accommodate the second accused in such a post. Learned counsel further submitted that the second accused did not have requisite qualification for being promoted as Foreman Grade-I. Learned counsel also pointed out that the promotion of the second accused to the post of Foreman Grade-I was made while he was a member of the Managing Committee and that fact is sufficient to establish abuse of power by the members of the Managing Committee. 19. Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Public Prosecutor, invited the attention of this Court to various documents produced by the prosecution in the Special Court along with the charge-sheet and contended that the facts emerging from such documents would clearly establish a prima facie case of abuse of power by the members of the Managing Committee in the matter of creation of the post of Foreman Grade-I and promotion of the second accused to that post. 20. Before considering the merits of the rival contentions, it would be advantageous to note the specific allegations made against the petitioners in the charge-sheets filed against them in the Special Court. 21. As far as the promotion of the second accused to the post of Foreman Grade-I is concerned, the following are the specific allegations made against the accused. (1) The members of the Managing Committee, with the intention to promote the second accused, created the post of Foreman Grade-I in the Devaswom. (2) The post of Foreman Grade-I was created in violation of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act 1978, Guruvayoor Devaswom Rules and the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983. (3) The post of Foreman Grade-I was created in violation of the judgment of this Court in O.P.Nos.15832/1993 and 5900/1997 dated 05.08.1999 (4) The post was created without putting the recommendation in that regard for the study of the Devaswom Expert Committee. (5) The qualification for the post was fixed with a view to enable the second accused to get the promotion. (5) The qualification for the post was fixed with a view to enable the second accused to get the promotion. (6) The creation of the post of Foreman Grade-I was in violation of Section 3(3) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 and Circular No-B1-17175/2001/CEI/18/09/2004 of the Chief Electrical Inspector Kerala. (7) The second accused had no qualification to hold the post of Foreman Grade-I. (8) The creation of the post of Foreman Grade-I and the promotion of the second accused to that post was the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused. 22. Now, the merits of the charge against each of the petitioners shall be considered. N.Raju (Accused No.2) 23. The second accused had entered into service in the Guruvayoor Devaswom as General Workman on 05.06.1985. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman on 11.11.1993. 24. The promotion of the second accused to the post of Assistant Lineman was challenged by some persons in the writ petitions filed before this Court as O.P.No.15832/1993 and O.P.No.5900/1997. As per Ext.P3 judgment in the above writ petitions, this Court found that the promotion of the second accused to the post of Assistant Lineman was improper and illegal. However, this Court did not disturb the promotion given to him on the ground that it was not proper to do so at a distant point of time. But, this Court had observed in Ext.P3 judgment that “the Administrator and the Commissioner, atleast hereafter, shall strictly adhere to the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 and the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and Rules made thereunder and make appointments strictly in accordance with the Regulations.” 25. The second accused was promoted to the post of Senior Technician in the year 2006. 26. As per Ext.P5 notification issued by the Government on 12.08.2011, the second accused was nominated to the Managing Committee as representative of the employees of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. His term as member of the Managing Committee expired on 14.11.2015. 27. The second accused was promoted to the post of Senior Technician in the year 2006. 26. As per Ext.P5 notification issued by the Government on 12.08.2011, the second accused was nominated to the Managing Committee as representative of the employees of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. His term as member of the Managing Committee expired on 14.11.2015. 27. At this juncture, it is to be noted that it was while the second accused was a member of the Managing Committee that the Committee took the decision to create three new posts, including a post of Foreman Grade-I. The second accused was thereafter promoted to the newly created post of Foreman Grade-I. This is one of the crucial circumstances projected by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the third respondent in support of their submission with regard to abuse of power by the second accused and the other members of the Managing Committee. 28. Ext.P8 is the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 17.08.2012. It would show that the second accused had participated in the meeting of the Managing Committee on that day. In that meeting, a decision was taken by the Managing Committee to create the posts of Foreman Grade-I, Store Keeper and Head Draughtsman and to seek the sanction of the Devaswom Commissioner for that purpose and to include the new posts in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations. 29. Ext.P8 minutes would show that the method of appointment to the post of Foreman Grade-I was fixed as promotion from Senior Operator/Senior Technician. The qualification fixed by the Managing Committee for that post was three years working experience as Senior Operator/Senior Technician in Guruvayoor Devaswom Electrical Wing with a pass in S.S.L.C examination or equivalent. 30. It is significant that, as per the decision taken by the Managing Committee, the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Foreman Grade-I was S.S.L.C or equivalent. 31. Ext.P9 is the order dated 11.09.2012 issued by the then Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner granting permission for the creation of the above three posts. It would show that the qualification for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I was mentioned as S.S.L.C and three years or more experience as Senior Operator/Senior Technician. 31. Ext.P9 is the order dated 11.09.2012 issued by the then Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner granting permission for the creation of the above three posts. It would show that the qualification for promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I was mentioned as S.S.L.C and three years or more experience as Senior Operator/Senior Technician. What is significant is that in stating the educational qualification for the post of Foreman Grade-I in Ext.P9 order, the word 'equivalent' (equivalent to S.S.L.C) was omitted and the educational qualification was mentioned only as 'S.S.L.C'. 32. Neither the prosecution nor the third respondent has got a case that the Managing Committee had no power to create new posts in the Devaswom or to prescribe the qualifications required for the posts in the Devaswom. What was required was only the approval of the Devaswom Commissioner. In the instant case, Ext.P9 order dated 11.09.2012 had been issued by the Devaswom Commissioner granting permission for the creation of the new three posts. 33. The contention of the third respondent is that when promotion was given to the second accused to the post of Foreman Grade-I, there was no such post in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 (for short 'the Regulations') and the qualifications for appointment to the post were not stated in the Regulations and therefore, the promotion given was not valid. There is no merit in this contention. When a new post is created and the qualification for that post is prescribed by a decision taken by the Managing Committee, naturally the details of such post would not be in the Regulations. When sanction was given by the Devaswom Commissioner as per Ext.P9 order dated 11.09.2012 for the creation of the new post, the post had come into existence. Then, the Managing Committee had the power to appoint or promote a person to that post. 34. The allegation that the post of Foreman-Grade I and the method of appointment to that post and the qualification fixed for that post were not included in the Regulations does not hold water in view of Ext.P9 order. Once the post was created by the Managing Committee with a decision to include the name of the post in the Regulations and sanction for creation of that post was also granted by the Devaswom Commissioner along with permission to include the new post in the Regulations, the new post had come into existence. Once the post was created by the Managing Committee with a decision to include the name of the post in the Regulations and sanction for creation of that post was also granted by the Devaswom Commissioner along with permission to include the new post in the Regulations, the new post had come into existence. The fact that the necessary amendment was incorporated in the Regulations and it was published in a book form only subsequently does not mean that creation of the new post did not take place till the time of such amendment and publication. After the Devaswom Commissioner issued Ext.P9 order, the Managing Committee had authority to promote suitable persons to the newly created posts. 35. Ext.P10 is the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 23.05.2013. It would show that the second and the fifth accused had not participated in that meeting. In that meeting, a decision was taken by the Managing Committee, to grant promotion to the persons who were in the list submitted to the Committee, on the basis of qualification and seniority. 36. In the light of the decision taken by the Managing Committee as per Ext.P10, the Administrator of the Devaswom issued Ext.P11 order dated 25.05.2013 granting promotion to some of the employees including the second accused. As per Ext.P11 order, the second accused was promoted to the new post of Foreman Grade-I. 37. In fact, Ext.P11 order dated 25.05.2013 granting promotion to the newly created post of Store Keeper was under challenge before this Court in the writ petitions filed as W.P.(C) Nos.24270/2013 and 26348/2013. In Ext.P12 judgment in the above writ petitions, after referring to Sections 18 and 36 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, this Court had stated as follows: “A reading of Section 39 of the Act would indicate that the Managing Committee of the Devaswom is the authority to prescribe the qualifications and methods of appointment to various posts in the service of the Devaswom and the only restriction on the exercise of that power is that the prescriptions in the Rules will be subject to the approval of the Government. It is not disputed that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 39 of the Act, the Managing Committee had issued, with the approval of the Government, the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983, prescribing qualifications and methods of appointment to various posts in the service of the Devaswom. …..... It is thus evident that going by the scheme of the Act, the role of the Commissioner is only to keep a check on the finance management of the Devaswom. As such, it cannot be held that Section 18 of the Act confers any authority on the Commissioner to prescribe qualification for a particular post or alter the qualification prescribed by the Managing Committee for a post". As per Ext.P12 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P9 order. But, in a review petition filed by the second accused and other persons, as per Ext.P13 order, this Court clarified that Ext.P9 order was quashed only insofar as it relates to the post of Store Keeper. Therefore, Ext.P9 order was not affected by Ext.P12 judgment as far as it related to the post of Foreman Grade-I. 38. The qualification for the post of Foreman Grade-I prescribed by the Managing Committee was three years working experience as Senior Operator/Senior Technician in Guruvayoor Devaswom Electrical Wing with a pass in S.S.L.C examination or equivalent. The third respondent would contend that the second accused had not passed S.S.L.C. Examination. Admittedly, the second accused had not passed S.S.L.C. Examination. But, the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Foreman Grade-I was S.S.L.C or equivalent. Therefore, if the second accused had qualification which was equivalent to S.S.L.C., it was sufficient. As noticed earlier, as per Ext.P12 judgment, this Court had held that the Devaswom Commissioner has no power to prescribe qualification for a particular post or alter the qualification prescribed by the Managing Committee for a post. 39. Ext.P4 is the copy of 10th Standard Equivalency 'A' Level Certificate issued in the name of the second accused by the Government of Kerala in the year 2008. As per Ext.P19 order dated 29.06.2015, the Government has approved Standard X Equivalency Course as equal to S.S.L.C. Subsequently, Ext.P20 order has been issued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Administrator, approving Standard X Equivalency Course as equal to S.S.L.C with retrospective effect from 09.03.2004. As per Ext.P19 order dated 29.06.2015, the Government has approved Standard X Equivalency Course as equal to S.S.L.C. Subsequently, Ext.P20 order has been issued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Administrator, approving Standard X Equivalency Course as equal to S.S.L.C with retrospective effect from 09.03.2004. This order was issued by the Devaswom Administrator on the basis of the decision taken by the Managing Committee to that effect on 06.08.2015. 40. In the light of Ext.P20 order, it cannot be now found that the second accused did not have the requisite educational qualification which was prescribed by the Managing Committee for the post of Foreman Grade-I. Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified. 'Ratification' by definition means the making valid of an act already done. Ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act. 41. However, as far as the second accused is concerned, it is not the end of the matter. The prosecution has alleged that the second accused did not have the qualification to hold the post of Foreman Grade-I in view of Section 3(3) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. 42. One Bhavadas had filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) No.10383/2015, pointing out that many of the persons who were working in the Guruvayur Devaswom Board in the Electrical Department were not persons qualified to continue so in view of the provisions contained in the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. Specific reference was made to Section 3 of the above Regulations, which speaks of designating persons for the purpose of operating and carrying out work of electric lines and apparatus, who shall necessarily posses a certificate of competency or electrical work permit issued by the appropriate Government. It was pointed out that many persons in the Electrical Wing in the Devaswom did not have the above qualification required. Learned Single Judge directed the Electrical Inspector of the State to conduct an inspection and submit a report before the Devaswom regarding the posts available and required for operating the installations and the Devaswom Board was directed to take a decision on that basis. 43. The Devaswom took a decision to adopt what was suggested by the Electrical Inspector, by amending the Devaswom Employees Regulations. 43. The Devaswom took a decision to adopt what was suggested by the Electrical Inspector, by amending the Devaswom Employees Regulations. In pursuance of that, show cause notices were issued to five persons continuing in the Devaswom, including the second accused, who admittedly did not have the qualification required as per the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations. 44. The second accused filed appeal as WA.No.2375 of 2018 against the judgment in WP(C) No.10383/2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner (A2) has made available copies of the judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in this regard. The Division Bench of this Court in the above writ appeal held as follows: "The qualifications of the appellant has also been perused by us, which fall short of what is required as suggested by the Electrical Inspector, which again is a mandate as per the Regulation of 2010. ..... We, hence record the submission of the Devaswom Board and direct the Devaswom Board to ensure that the directions issued by the Electrical Inspector, are scrupulously complied with and persons are appointed only with qualifications so as to ensure the safety of the devotees coming to the temple. It is submitted that the appellant is under suspension and this order shall not affect such orders of suspension, which would have to be proceeded with in the normal course. The appellant when adjusted to a different post his pay shall be protected, since though sans qualification, he had been working with the Dewaswom Board and had enjoyed the benefits of pay in that post; who is also now on the verge of retirement. The writ appeal would stand rejected, but however, with the above observations". (emphasis supplied) 45. The Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) D.11350/2020) filed by the Managing Committee against the judgment of this Court in WA.No.2375 of 2018 was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 18.08.2020, stating as follows: "2. The first respondent, who was originally appointed to the post of Helper in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board was reverted to the post of Attender. The first respondent does not have the qualifications prescribed under the Central Authority (Measures relating to Saftey and Electric Supply) Regulations 2010. The Board had resolved, following the institution of certain writ proceedings, to amend its regulations to bring them in conformity with the CEA Regulations. The first respondent does not have the qualifications prescribed under the Central Authority (Measures relating to Saftey and Electric Supply) Regulations 2010. The Board had resolved, following the institution of certain writ proceedings, to amend its regulations to bring them in conformity with the CEA Regulations. However, the Board stated before the High Court that the first respondent would be accommodated on another post. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that his pay should be protected since he was on the verge of retirement. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the direction for the protection of pay would cause imbalance in the pay structure of the post on which the first respondent was subsequently appointed. We have been informed by Mr Roy Abhraham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent that the first respondent has since retired on 31 May, 2020. 4. Having regard to the fact that the first respondent has retired, which is not in dispute, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition insofar as the grant of relief of pay protection to him is concerned. However, we do so in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case with the clarification that the impugned judgment of the High Court shall not be cited as a precedent in any other case. The benefits, if any, due and payable shall be paid over to the first respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order." (emphasis supplied) The person who is referred to as the first repondent in the above order is the second accused in this case. 46. The judgment of this Court in WA.No.2375 of 2018, as confirmed by the Supreme Court as mentioned above, has protected the pay and allowances paid to the second accused in the post of Foreman Grade-I. The order of the Supreme Court shows that the pay of the second accused in the cadre of Foreman Grade-I was not only protected but a positive direction was made for the payment of the benefits due to him within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Though it is a development subsequent to the filing of the final reports against the accused in the Special Court by the VACB, it shatters the substratum of the prosecution against the second accused for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 47. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act (as it stood before the amendment in the year 2018) provides that, a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, if he, -(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. 48. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that, if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of 'criminal misconduct' under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The three wings of clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act, obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. Under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, "obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage" by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself or for any other person would amount to criminal misconduct. Under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, if a public servant, while he holds office, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest, it would amount to criminal misconduct. 49. To attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, public servant should obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant. Therefore, in order to establish a case under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, there must be materials on record that the accused has obtained for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 50. The prosecution has no case that anybody obtained any valuable thing by virtue of the promotion given to the second accused. Therefore, in order to establish a case under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, there must be materials on record that the accused has obtained for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 50. The prosecution has no case that anybody obtained any valuable thing by virtue of the promotion given to the second accused. Here, the prosecution case is that the second accused obtained pecuniary advantage as he received the salary and allowances applicable to the post of Foreman Grade-I due to the illegal promotion granted to him. Therefore, the 'pecuniary advantage', which forms the basis for attracting the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act in the present case, is the excess pay and allowances received by the second accused by virtue of his illegal promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-I. 51. Even if it is accepted that the materials on record produced by the prosecution would establish that the members of the Managing Committee, including the second accused, fixed the qualification for the post of Foreman Grade-I with the sole intention of giving promotion to the second accused to that post and accordingly, illegally promoted the second accused, who did not have the requisite qualification to hold that post, and that the accused had abused their official position and acted against public interest, it would not attract the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The reason is that the pay of the second accused in the post of Foreman Grade-I was protected as per the judgment of this Court and that judgment was confirmed and order was passed by the Supreme Court to pay him all the benefits due. Therefore, it cannot be found that the second accused had illegally or wrongfully obtained any pecuniary advantage. It means absence of one of the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 52. In the above circumstances, in relation to the promotion of the second accused to the post of Foreman Grade-I, the allegations in Exts. P27 to P30 charge-sheets have lost their basis or foundation. 53. The allegation against the second accused, in relation to the appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst, shall be considered while considering the merits of the charge against the eighth accused. Thushar Vellappilly (Accused No.5) 54. The fifth accused was a member of the Managing Committee. P27 to P30 charge-sheets have lost their basis or foundation. 53. The allegation against the second accused, in relation to the appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst, shall be considered while considering the merits of the charge against the eighth accused. Thushar Vellappilly (Accused No.5) 54. The fifth accused was a member of the Managing Committee. In the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 17.08.2012, he had participated. It was in that meeting, the Managing Committee took the decision to create the posts of Foreman Grade-I, Store Keeper and Head Draughtsman and to seek the sanction of the Devaswom Commissioner for that purpose. The role of the fifth accused in the matter is confined to the fact that he was a party to the above decision. He had not participated in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 23.05.2013 in which the decision to grant promotion to the second accused was taken. The prosecution has not attributed any role to the fifth accused in the matter relating to the appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst. Once it is found that the charge against the second accused has lost its foundation, the charge against the fifth accused as a party to the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution can have also no basis. K.Renjith (Accused No.8) 55. With regard to the appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst in the Devaswom, the specific allegations contained in the final reports filed in the Special Court are the following : (1) Accused 1 to 3, 6 and 7 abused their official position and conspired together with the eighth accused (2) Accused 1 to 3, 6 and 7 violated the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and the Rules and the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations in appointing the eighth accused as System Analyst (3) The eighth accused was appointed as System Analyst for one year with a monthly salary of Rs.35,000/-, without publishing any notification, inviting application for appointment to the post of System Analyst and without conducting any test or interview (4) The service of the eighth accused was extended after completing the period of one year, in violation of the order of the Devaswom Commissioner to terminate his services. 56. While discussing the merits of the case against the eighth accused, the documents produced in Crl.M.C.No.2090 of 2020 as Annexures shall be hereinafter referred to. 57. 56. While discussing the merits of the case against the eighth accused, the documents produced in Crl.M.C.No.2090 of 2020 as Annexures shall be hereinafter referred to. 57. There was no post of “System Analyst” in the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The name of the post which existed was “System Administrator”. 58. The Administrator of Guruvayoor Devaswom had published Annexure-E notification dated 24.01.2013 inviting applications for appointment to the post of System Administrator on deputation basis. 59. Annexure-F is the extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 14.06.2013. It shows that there was no application received in response to Annexure-E notification. It further shows that the eighth accused had sent application informing the Devaswom that he was ready to work in the computer section. 60. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the eighth accused had earlier worked in the Devaswom and he was the person who developed the software in the ticket counter of the Guruvayoor Temple. 61. Annexure-F minutes would show that the expert committee of the computer section of the Devaswom had conducted an interview with the eighth accused and that the expert committee had made recommendation to create a post of System Analyst and to appoint the eighth accused to that post. Annexure-F minutes further shows that the Managing Committee found that it had become absolutely necessary to obtain the services of a computer expert in the Devaswom. Therefore, after considering the report of the computer expert committee, the Managing Committee decided to create a post of System Analyst and to appoint the eighth accused to that post on temporary basis on a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. 62. In the light of Annexure-F decision of the Managing Committee, the Administrator issued Annexure-G order dated 01.07.2013, appointing the eighth accused on temporary basis to the post of System Analyst. 63. Annexure-I order dated 22.02.2014 issued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner shows that the decision of the Managing Committee to appoint the eighth accused to the post of System Analyst for a period of one year on temporary basis was ratified by him. 64. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the Administrator had sent Annexure-H request to the Devaswom Commissioner for granting sanction for appointment of the eighth accused to the post of System Analyst for a period of one year. 64. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the Administrator had sent Annexure-H request to the Devaswom Commissioner for granting sanction for appointment of the eighth accused to the post of System Analyst for a period of one year. But, Annexure-F minutes does not show that the Managing Committee had taken any decision to limit the period of appointment of the eighth accused for a period of one year. 65. Annexure-J is the extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 25.08.2014. It shows that the Managing Committee decided to regularise the appointment of all persons working in the Devaswom on temporary basis and to make them permanent. 66. However, on 14.12.2015, as per Annexure-K order, the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner cancelled the permission granted for the creation of the temporary post of System Analyst and directed termination of the services of the person who was appointed on temporary basis in that post. 67. The eighth accused filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No.23467/2016 challenging Annexure-K order passed by the Devaswom Commissioner. As per Annexure-L order dated 14.07.2016 in the above writ petition, this Court granted stay of Annexure-K order passed by the Devaswom Commissioner. 68. Regarding the initial appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst on temporary basis, whatever be the irregularities or illegalities that occurred in the procedure adopted in making that appointment, once Annexure-I order was passed by the Devaswom Commissioner ratifying such appointment, the appointment became legal and valid. As noticed earlier, ratification relates back and it recognizes the initial act. 69. In Sathyan Naravoor v. Union of India : 2017 (2) KLJ 43 , a Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows: “It is well settled that a subsequent ratification has retrospective effect and is equivalent to a prior command. ....... Therefore, the conduct of the 5th respondent in taking up employment during the period of leave without permission cannot now said to be illegal ........ Applying the law relating to ratification to the instant case, conclusion is irresistible that, once the State Government ratified the action of the 5th respondent in taking up employment during the period of leave without Government permission and remitting the remuneration to the Management Institute, it relates back to the time when such action was taken by the 5th respondent without authority, i.e., without prior Government permission”. 70. 70. Further, if the initial appointment of the eighth accused on temporary basis was the result of any criminal misconduct on the part of the members of the Managing Committee and if the eighth accused was a party to the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution in connection with such appointment, the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner V.M.Gopala Menon, who issued Annexure-I order ratifying that appointment, should have also been made an accused in the case. In the final reports filed by the investigating officer in the Special Court, a very detailed explanation is given for deleting his name from the array of accused. But, nothing is mentioned in that explanation with regard to his role in the appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst. 71. It was as per Annexure-K order dated 14.12.2015 that the Devaswom Commissioner gave direction to terminate the appointment of the person who was appointed on temporary basis as System Analyst. There is a specific averment in the Crl.M.Cs filed by the eighth accused that, as per Annexure-L order in W.P.(C) No.23467/2016, this Court had stayed Annexure-K order and that, even after Annexure-K order, the eighth accused continued to work in the post of System Analyst on the basis of Annexure-L order. This specific averment in the Crl.M.Cs filed by the eighth accused is not denied or disputed by the investigating officer in the statement filed by him in those Crl.M.Cs. Nothing is mentioned in the statement filed by the investigating officer with regard to Annexure-L order passed by this Court and regarding the claim of the eighth accused that he had continued to work in the post of System Analyst on the basis of Annexure-L order. Learned Public Prosecutor has also got no plea that Annexure-L order was subsequently vacated by this Court or that the writ petition filed by the eighth accused was dismissed or disposed of by this Court. 72. It is true that it was long after Annexure-K order was passed by the Devaswom Commissioner that Annexure-L order of stay was passed by this Court. However, the fact remains that this Court had stayed the termination of the services of the eighth accused. 73. 72. It is true that it was long after Annexure-K order was passed by the Devaswom Commissioner that Annexure-L order of stay was passed by this Court. However, the fact remains that this Court had stayed the termination of the services of the eighth accused. 73. When a person has worked in a post and when he has received or obtained the salary and allowances as remuneration for his work, it cannot be found that he has obtained any 'pecuniary advantage' within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 74. As far as the appointment of the eighth accused is concerned, the role of the second accused is that he was a member of the Managing Committee who took the decision to appoint the eighth accused as System Analyst. In view of the facts stated earlier relating to the appointment of the eighth accused on temporary basis in the post of System Analyst and the subsequent ratification of such appointment by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Commissioner, the charge against the second accused in connection with such appointment, for an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, can have no basis. 75. In Dr. Dhananjai Kumar Pandey v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 5625, the basis of the allegation against the accused that they committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 120B of the I.P.C was that accused 1 to 4 in that case entered into criminal conspiracy and by abusing their official position as public servants, recruited Dr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey as Scientist by grossly violating and flouting the procedures laid down and thereby showed undue favour to him, who did not have the requisite qualification and experience to hold that post and who was reported to be closely associated/related with the first accused therein, and he was selected by overlooking other suitable/eligible candidates. The Bombay High Court quashed the F.I.R, by stating as follows: "The allegations against the present petitioner are that the other accused persons i.e. accused nos. 1 to 4 have selected the present petitioner for the post of Scientist by giving go by to the procedure laid down. The entire contents of the FIR are relating to the alleged irregularities committed by the accused nos.1 to 4 while selecting the present petitioner/accused no.5 which do not constitute any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 or Prevention of Corruption Act. ........ The entire contents of the FIR are relating to the alleged irregularities committed by the accused nos.1 to 4 while selecting the present petitioner/accused no.5 which do not constitute any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 or Prevention of Corruption Act. ........ If at all there were irregularities while selecting the present petitioner or his wife Dr.Anju Pandey to the particular post, the concerned Department can look into the matter and see whether really some concession was given to the present petitioner or his wife at the time of their selection. Even assuming for time being, the accused nos. 1 to 4 have not followed the procedure and they have given some concession to the present petitioner even then such act could give rise only to initiate departmental inquiry but in any way no criminal liability can be fasten upon the accused in absence of a specific allegation in reference to the cheating or corruption". The Special Leave Petition filed by the C.B.I against the above order was dismissed by the Supreme Court (See Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. Dhananjai Kumar Pandey: MANU/SCOR/80507/2017). 76. Mere violation of procedure in the appointment of the eighth accused as System Analyst does not lead to an inference that the Members of the Managing Committee had dishonest intention in making such appointment especially when the appointment was ratified by the competent authority. 77. Dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Mere conduct and action of a public servant, without dishonest intention but contrary to departmental norms, do not amount to criminal misconduct (See Jaffer Sharief v. State : AIR 2013 SC 48 ) 78. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that there is no factual basis for the allegation against the petitioners that they committed criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act in relation to the appointment of the second and the eighth accused in the Devaswom. The final reports filed in the Special Court, as far as they relate to the petitioners, are liable to be quashed. 79. In reaching the conclusion above, this Court has taken into account certain materials produced by the petitioners also. The final reports filed in the Special Court, as far as they relate to the petitioners, are liable to be quashed. 79. In reaching the conclusion above, this Court has taken into account certain materials produced by the petitioners also. Most of such materials are the judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in relation to the very same appointments made by the Managing Committee of the Devaswom and also orders issued by the Devaswom Commissioner. They are materials, which would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the petitioners and which cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution. Such materials can be considered by the High Court in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C (See Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor : (2013) 3 SCC 330 ). 80. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The final reports filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau in the Special Court in V.C.No.32/16/TSR (Exts.P27 to P30 in O.P (Crl) No.452 of 2016), only to the extent they pertain to the petitioners, and all proceedings against the petitioners alone based on such final reports, are hereby quashed.