IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15781 of 2009(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.REMESH KUMAR,CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALUVA. BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.S.SUJIN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,ERNAKULAM RURAL,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,POLICE HEADQUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED: R4. K.C.BABURAJ, S/O.K.A.CHANDRAN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, QUARTER NO.V A – 3, POLICE HOUSE COMPLEX, PERUMANOOR. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 10/07/2009 IN I.A.NO.8281/2009) R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A.ASIF R4 BY ADV. MR.K.R.VINOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.15781/2009 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER DGO NO.537/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF ORDER DGO 649/2009 DTD. 09/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15781 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Circle Inspector of Police, Aluva. He is aggrieved by what is termed as repeated orders of transfer, to which he is subjected to. 2. The petitioner was the Circle Inspector of Police, Traffic East, Ernakulam in 2004. From there he was transferred to Palluruthy. He served there only for a period of six months, from where he was again transferred to Ernakulam Central and then to Ernakulam Town North Police Station. From there he was transferred to SBCID, Ernakulam where he worked only for a short period, after which he was transferred to State Crime Records Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, from where, after a period of three months he was transferred to the Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram. Within one month, he was transferred to SBCID, Palakkad in October, 2008. and from there, as a Station House Officer, Alappuzha North on 17.12.2008. By order dated W.P.(C).No.15781 of 2009 :: 2 :: 25.5.2009, he was again transferred to Aluva and while continuing so, he was met with Ext.P1 order by which he was transferred to CBCID, Kottayam. This order is challenged in this writ petition. 3. By an interim order this court had stayed Ext.P1 order transferring him from Aluva to Kottayam. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows: “The Director, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureai in its letter No.C4-Vc1- 09/SCE/1203/09 dated 16.02.2009 has recommended the Government to transfer our the petitioner from Ernakulam Range to ensure that he will not influences the witness of the case. It is true that the petitioner was transferred from Alappuzha North to Alwaye Station in order No.DGO no.492/2009 dated 26.05.2009. While transferring the petitioner from Alappuzha North Alwaye, the Police Headquarters had no information about any Vigilance Case pending against the petitioner and the letter of the Director of Vigilance to the Government. It wa sonly because the W.P.(C).No.15781 of 2009 :: 3 :: communication of the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau was not known to this respondent that the petitioner was transferred to Alwaye Circle which is within Ernakulam Range. Immediately on getting information of the letter from the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ext.P1 order was issued transferring the petitioner outside the Ernakulam Range as directed by the Vigilance. The above action of this respondent is in public interest with the only intention to see that the petitioner may not influence the witnesses in the vigilance case registered against him. Therefore Ext.P1 order issued in the above background is without any malafide intention or ill will towards the petitioner. It is submitted that due to the stay order passed by this Hon'ble Court the other transferees in Ext.P1 list is also effected and there is a chain of reaction. Therefore there is no merits in the writ petition and it is most humbly prayed that the present Writ Petition may be dismissed.” 5. The person who was transferred to the place of the petitioner has subsequently got himself impleaded W.P.(C).No.15781 of 2009 :: 4 :: and according to him, the order of stay had resulted in a situation, where he was left without a posting. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and has pointed out that as per a subsequent order passed on 9.7.2009, the additional 4th respondent has now been posted to the CBCID, Ernakulam. 7. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner's transfer from Aluva to Kottayam was effected in compliance with the recommendations made by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. There is a vigilance enquiry pending against the petitioner based on a complaint of amassing wealth, disproportionate to his known sources of income. Though there was a recommendation to suspend the petitioner, ultimately the petitioner had only been transferred within the Ernakulam Range. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sugunapalan submits that the reasons now put forward is only to justify the order and as a matter of that, W.P.(C).No.15781 of 2009 :: 5 :: there was no justification for the petitioner to be transferred to Aluva. The explanation offered in the counter affidavit in this regard is that it is under the recommendation of the Director of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption that the petitioner was transferred to Aluva. 9. Since there was a recommendation of the Director of Vigilance and the vigilance enquiry against the petitioner was not completed, it is only appropriate that the petitioner be posted in a place outside Ernakulam, at least, for the period till the enquiry is over. But the vigilance enquiry against the petitioner should be completed within a time frame. It shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If it is not completed within the three months' period, then the petitioner shall be given a posting back in Ernakulam itself. It is so ordered. 10. Notwithstanding this, it is open to the petitioner to file a representation before the Government for a posting within Ernakulam or for a transfer from W.P.(C).No.15781 of 2009 :: 6 :: Kottayam, where he is currently posted as per Ext.P1, even before the expiry of three months and if it is so done, it is open to the Director General of Police to take a decision. 11. Insofar as the additional 4th respondent is concerned, it is open to him to accept the posting now given to him. If he has any grievance regarding the posting, it is open to him to represent before the superior officers. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//