IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16690 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ABDUL SAMAD.M,S/O.LATE MAMMAD,AASHIYANA, PUTHUPPANAM.P.O,VADAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673105. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF(DGP),KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,CRIME,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH,CBCID,HHW-III,KOZHIKODE,PIN-673001. 4. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE,WAYANAD,KALPATTA NORTH, PIN-673122. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT,PIN-673579. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.16690/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE D.O.252/2011 DTD. 1.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE DPO TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE PASSPORT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 4.6.2011 BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULPALLI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.16690 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits P1 and P2 and quash Ext.P2 to the extent it refuses the petitioner to join for duty at Crime Branch, CID, HHW-III, Kozhikode on the basis of Ext.P1 transfer order. The respondents were directed to file a statement as to why despite Ext.P1, the petitioner was not permitted to join at the transferred place. Subsequently, the first respondent has filed a statement. Along with the statement, the first respondent has produced Annexure R1(a) and R1(b). Annexure R1(a) is the verification report. It is stated therein as follows:- “The Superintendent's of Police, CBCID HHW-III Kozhikode vide references cited 2nd (Copy enclosed) has reported that SCPO 1051 Abdul Samad was not suitable to work in CBCID and requested to cancel his posting to CBCID HHW-III Kozhikode.” 2. The letter appended along with Annexure-R1(a) reveals the reasons for arriving at the finding that the petitioner is not suitable to work W.P.(C) NO.16690 of 2011 2 in CBCID. It would further reveal that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the following facts were revealed. a) He was placed under suspension for the charge of trespassing into a female ward of Govt.Hospital, Kalpetta and misbehaving towards ladies staff while he was supposed to be on duty of Station Guard at Kalpetta Police Station on 3.7.1997. In this connection an Oral Enquiry was conducted against him and punishment awarded. b) He was later transferred to Pulpally Police Station based on a special report as he argued with N.M.Jose, ASI who questioned him when he availed Medical Leave to evade station duty. It is based on the reporting of the aforesaid incidents that a decision was taken to cancel the posting of the petitioner to CBCID HHW-III, Kozhikode. Subsequent to the cancellation of Ext.P1order, the petitioner was directed to be retained in Pulpally Police Station as per Ext.R1(b). In other words, Ext.P1 was modified as per Annexure-R1(b). 3. This Court poignantly put a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is denying the factum of initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the allegation referred above i.e., one belonging to the trespassing into the female ward of Govt.Hospital, Kalpetta and misbehaving towards the lady staff on 3.7.1997 and imposition of a penalty on its culmination. The fact that such an allegation W.P.(C) NO.16690 of 2011 3 has been raised against the petitioner and an oral enquiry was conducted and it culminated in awarding of punishment were not all disputed by the petitioner. The stand of the respondents that persons with such antecedents cannot be made part of CBCID cannot be styled as arbitrary or illegal. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P2 or Ext.R1(b) whereby Ext.P1 was cancelled rather, virtually modified. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has already shifted his family to Kozhikode and therefore, all of a sudden, if it is cancelled, it will put the petitioner in undue hardships and inconveniences. Therefore, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the question of granting a suitable posting to the petitioner. Without making any observation as to the said submission, petitioner is granted liberty to file a petition before the first respondent carrying such a request and explaining his inconveniences. He may do so within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner prefers such a petition explaining his difficulties, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders taking note of the grievances raised by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of W.P.(C) NO.16690 of 2011 4 receipt of such a representation. The Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.16690 of 2011 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010