In a significant administrative move, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) deputy director who led the probe into the high-profile 2020 diplomatic channel gold smuggling case in Kerala has been asked to proceed on premature retirement. The officer, P Radhakrishnan, had five years of service remaining when the order was issued.
The Official Order and Its Timing
The Union government issued the compulsory retirement order for P Radhakrishnan approximately a week ago, with the approval of the President of India. This action cuts short his tenure by a significant five-year period. The case he investigated had ensnared M Sivasankar, the then Principal Secretary to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, alleging his involvement in the smuggling operation that misused diplomatic baggage channels.
Radhakrishnan's Role and Legal Challenges
At the time of the investigation, Radhakrishnan served as the ED's Kochi zonal deputy director. His tenure was marked by legal confrontations with the state police. He moved the Kerala High Court against an investigation launched by the state Crime Branch. This police probe was based on allegations made by prime accused Swapna Suresh, who claimed that ED and Customs officials were attempting to falsely implicate Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in the smuggling scandal.
The court's decision ultimately favored the procedural integrity of the central agencies. The Kerala High Court dismissed two separate cases filed by the Crime Branch, both of which were predicated on an alleged audio clip. This judicial outcome was seen as a vindication of the ED's investigative process at the time.
A Series of Transfers and Tribunal Appeal
Following the intense legal and political scrutiny, Radhakrishnan's career path saw considerable turbulence. He was transferred from the Kochi zonal office to the Chennai zone in 2022. After a two-year stint there, he returned to Kochi, only to be subsequently transferred again, this time to the Srinagar office.
Radhakrishnan challenged this transfer to Srinagar before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), but his appeal was unsuccessful. In its response to the tribunal, the ED provided a rationale for the transfer, stating it was linked to a pending inquiry into a serious complaint. The agency alleged that the officer was under scrutiny for accusations of attempting to harass, threaten, and extort money.
The premature retirement of a key investigating officer in such a politically sensitive case is likely to raise questions and have lasting implications for the ongoing legal proceedings and the perception of the probe's independence.
