IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18388 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O KUNJAN, AGED 46 YEARS, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DCRE, KANNUR (UNDER SUSPENSION), THORANATHIL HOUSE,THALAYOLAPARAMBU, ATTAYAM, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).18388/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is a Deputy Superintendent of Police, challenges Ext.P1 order of suspension dated 15.12.2006. Petitioner's plea for revocation of suspension was considered and by Ext.P3 order dated 25.9.2007, petitioner was told that he was suspended on account of the registration of Crime No.782/2006 under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, in Thaliparamba police station and the alleged immoral activity has tarnished the image of the police among the general public. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of this Court in Crl.M.C.Nos.294/1998 and 1005/2007 reported in Radhakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KLT 521). He makes specific reference to the stringent observations made by this Court in paragraph 11 and 12 of the judgment which read as follows:- W.P.(C).18388/2008 2 “A perusal of the files leading to Annexure-I F.I.R and Annexure-II final report shows that the petitioner's contention that he was falsely and maliciously implicated in this case, is not far fetched. This Court had occasion to observe the withdrawal of the petitioner from the position of the investigating officer while he was efficiently and without fear or favour discharging his duties as such in Crime No.442 of 2006 of Thalassery Police Station. What was the provocation for the local public to keep a watch over the house in question even before the arrival of the visitors? Why would the persons inside the house and who were allegedly including in satiating their useful desires, make it a point to deliberately keep open all the windows of the particular room and switch on the lights, for the neighbours and local public to view a free show? Was it not the unsolicited intrusion of the local busy bodies which resulted in the petitioner herein and others being attacked and brutally assaulted culminating in the registration of Crime No.783/2006 by the Thaliparamba police? W.P.(C).18388/2008 3 Were these developments mere coincidence or were they calculated to denigrate the image and reputation of the petitioner who showed the rare courage of nearly apprehending the real culprits in the Fatal murder case, and was thereby incurring the wrath of the unseen power centres, as he would contend? Well, the common man is not a fool to swallow every such incredible story as the gospel truth. The petitioner's grievance that false implication in a politically engineered trap case is the price which he paid for faithfully serving the Government, cannot be totally lost sight of. Rajesh (A3) who was also brutally manhandled by the inquisitive busy bodies of the locality is stated to have breathed his last consequent on kidney failure developed by him. What is it that has been achieved by registering this crime and humiliating a few individuals knowing fully well that it would be a futile adventure? The revengeful Mr.Anonymous may ask himself.” W.P.(C).18388/2008 4 3. The proceedings in C.C.739/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Clas, Thaliparamba, were quashed and the Crl.M.Cs filed by the petitioner were allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is clear from the judgment of this Court that the basis for placing the petitioner under suspension has been effectively removed by Ext.P4 judgment passed by this Court and therefore, it would be a travesty of justice to keep the petitioner under suspension. He further submits that request for revoking the petitioner's suspension and reinstating him in service has already been filed before the Government. But action has not been taken thereon. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader. 6. Obviously the Government is bound to take note of the fact that the criminal case registered against the W.P.(C).18388/2008 5 petitioner has been quashed by this Court. If that be the position, the basis for suspension has undergone a drastic change. Government is bound to look into the petitioner's request for reinstatement in service, after revocation of suspension in this regard. 7. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders as regards the petitioner's plea for revocation of suspension, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the Government to take action, petitioner shall produce a coy of the writ petition along with the representation containing the request for revocation of suspension. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs