IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 31287 of 2007(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KRISHNAN R., S/O. RAMAN CHETTIAR, MUTHUCHIRA HOUSE, KUNNISSERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALGHAT. BY ADVS.MR.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA MR.A.S.BRIJESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRICHUR. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALGHAT - 678 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.31287/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT RECORDED BY PETITIONER DT. 14.4.01. P2:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS DT. 14.4.01. P3:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DT. 14.4.01. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC. NO.315/01 DT. 23.12.02. P5:- MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 2.1.03. P6:- COPY OF THE PETITIONERS OBJECTION DT. 14.2.03. P7:- COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENTS ORDER DT. 20.10.03. P8:- COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTS ORDER DT. 2.9.05. P9:- COPY OF THE IST RESPONDENTS ORDER DT. 18.12.06. P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE R2. DT. 30.10.06. P11:- COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN OP. MV. NO.1278/01 FILED BY DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALGHAT . TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 31287 of 2007-Y ------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Smt.S.Chithra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who is presently working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police had investigated Crime No.113/2001 of Kuzhalmannam Police Station, while he was the Head Constable attached to that Police Station. Sri.C.Prabhakaran the defacto complainant in that case who was riding a scooter met with an accident involving a stage carriage bus. A crime was registered against the driver of the bus by the petitioner who investigated the crime and filed the final report. After trial, the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad acquitted the accused by Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 23.12.2002. The trial Court held that the statement of PW1, the defacto complainant regarding the occurrence cannot be believed. It was held that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Ext.P4 judgment has become final. There is no observation or finding in Ext.P4 judgment that the investigation was not proper or that the investigating officer was guilty of any act of misconduct or negligence W.P(C) No. 31287 of 2007-Y 2 in the discharge of his official duties. A reading of Ext.P4 judgment discloses that no one of the eye witness to the occurrence supported the defacto complainant. 3. It appears that the defacto complainant had filed a complaint before the petitioner's superior officer. Thereupon disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner. By Ext.P7 order passed on 20.10.2003, the Superintendent of Police held that the petitioner committed misconduct in investigating Crime No.113/2001. The Superintendent of Police imposed on the petitioner the punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, the petitioner moved the Deputy Inspector General of Police in appeal. By Ext.P8 order passed on 2.9.2005, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner thereupon moved the Government in revision. By Ext.P9 order passed on 18.12.2006, the revision petition was also rejected. Exts.P7, P8 and P9 are under challenge in this writ petition. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. A reading of Exts.P7, P8 and P9 indicate that contrary to the findings in Ext.P4 judgment, the superior officers of the petitioner and the Government have held that the investigation of Crime No.113/2001 was not proper. A reading of Ext.P4 judgment would indicate that no one of the eye witness supported the W.P(C) No. 31287 of 2007-Y 3 case of the defacto complainant and that the defacto complainant himself had a different story to tell regarding the accident when he was examined as PW1. The trial court noticed that the PW1 had deviated from the version given by him to the Police and that his version cannot be believed. A reading of Ext.P4 judgment would indicate that the defacto complainant suddenly swerved the scooter he was riding without giving signal and that he was guilty of negligent driving. The pleadings also disclose that the defacto complainant had filed O.P (MV) No.1278 of 2001 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him and that the said claim was settled out of Court. In my opinion in the light of the clear findings in Ext.P4 judgment, the superior officers of the petitioner could not have come to a finding that the investigation of Crime No.113/2001 was not proper. In my opinion the superior officers of the petitioner have virtually overruled the learned Magistrate. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the finding of guilty entered against the petitioner and the punishment imposed on him have to be set aside. I accordingly allow this writ petition, quash Exts.P7, P8 and P9 and direct that if Ext.P7 order has been implemented by giving effect to the punishment imposed thereunder, the competent authority among the respondents shall take steps to re-fix the salary and allowances payable W.P(C) No. 31287 of 2007-Y 4 to the petitioner and disburse the arrears thereof within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say, if the petitioner has been superceded for promotion to the higher posts in view of the impugned orders, his claim for promotion shall be reviewed and a decision taken in the matter expeditiously and in any event within the aforesaid period of three months. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab W.P(C) No. 31287 of 2007-Y 5