IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31731 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.IQBAL, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, S/O.MEERASAHIB, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT ROSE MAHAL, VAKKANAD.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT. SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (INTELLIGENCE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.NANDA KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos. 31731 & 32003 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who filed these writ petitions, is working as Circle Inspector of Police. He was posted at Punalur, Kollam district. 2. In so far as WP(C) No.31731/2009 is concerned, the challenge is against Ext.P3 order dated 12/10/2009, by which he has been transferred and allotted to North Zone on Public Interest with immediate effect. In so far as WP(C) No.32009/2009 is concerned, the challenge is against Ext.P2, a report dated 17/10/2009, submitted by the 2nd respondent to the Inspector General of Police. According to the petitioner, he joined Punalur in Kollam district only on 04/06/2009. 3. It is stated that with effect from 11/10/2009 he was granted leave for attending the Umra. It is stated that as part of the Umra, he was attending to certain religious functions and formalities, and that on 11/10/2009 on his way to his house, he stopped for 2-3 minutes for performing the function 'Porutham' WP(C) Nos.31731 & 32003/2009 -2- with one of his close friends, Shri.Santhosh Nair, another Circle Inspector of Police. It is stated that on getting information that Shri.Santhosh Nair was in the Asramom Guest House, solely with a view to meet him and to offer 'Porutham', the petitioner stopped at the Asramom Guest House, in front of room No.8, and that after performing 'Porutham' he left the premises on his way to home. It is stated that thereafter he left for Umra and on coming back, he came to know that he was transferred by Ext.P3 order dated 12/10/2009. It is stated that there is absolutely no justification for the transfer, which has been ordered on the basis of certain allegations involving certain other Police Officers, and that he did not have anything to do with that incident as alleged. 4. However, the learned Government Pleader, who obtained instructions in the matter, submits that in relation to an incident, which occurred at the Asramom Guest House on 11/10/2009, to which the petitioner was also a party, several allegations have been raised, and that on receipt of a preliminary report, the Officers mentioned in Ext.P3 were ordered to be transferred. It is stated that they have also received Ext.P2 report from the Superintendent of WP(C) Nos.31731 & 32003/2009 -3- Police which also suggests the involvement of the petitioner and that further action is being initiated on that basis. 5. From the above, therefore, it is evident that the reason, which led to the transfer, was the complaints that were received by the Authorities against the Officers including the petitioner. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in holding that the authorities have acted illegally by transferring the petitioner. 6. In so far as WP(C) No.32003/2009 is concerned, what is under challenge is Ext.P2, a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the Inspector General of Police in relation to the incident that happened at the Asramom Guest House on 11/10/2009. The Superintendent of Police conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted his report to the Inspector General of Police. This report may be a material available before the disciplinary authority and it is up to that authority to initiate action as he deems fit. 7. As at present, no action has been initiated against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by this report. Further any action to be initiated against the petitioner for any misconduct committed by him, should necessarily be based on WP(C) Nos.31731 & 32003/2009 -4- a charge memo and with opportunity to the petitioner. For that reason, challenge against Ext.P2 is also unsustainable, and therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with the same. The petitioner submits that he intends to file an application before the Director General of Police seeking cancellation of his transfer. This the petitioner can do, and if so, such a representation is received, the concerned authority shall consider the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of its receipt. These writ petitions are dismissed as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg