IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 16248 of 1999(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.V.MAJEED, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY, HOME (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CB CID, KANNUR. 3. SHRI. BHASKARA PONNAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, WAYANAD. 4. SHRI. S.SUBASH CHANDRA, INVESTIGATING OFFICER, CRIME NO. 121 OF 1998 OF KANKANADY POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, KARNATAKA - IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 19.2.2009 IN I.A. NO. 2653 OF 2009 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI SRI.K.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.V.M.KURIAN(JR.) FOR R2 TO R5 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 16248 of 1999(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF ABSTRACT OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 27.5.1998. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES WITH THE STATEMENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE OFFICE FILE NO.5/PR/CB KNR/98 DTD. 3.12.1998. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 7.4.1999 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.6.1999. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 17.6.1999 TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... O.P No. 16248 of 1999 ................................................. Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges disciplinary proceedings against him on a charge memo alleging that while the petitioner was working as a Circle Inspector of police, Kumbala in the year 1994, a man-missing case registered as a crime has been altered as a crime under Section 376 of the IPC, which according to the allegation was improper conduct on the part of the petitioner, in view of the fact that there was no rape of the victims going by the statement of the victims themselves. The petitioner filed this writ petition at a time when the petitioner was denied the opportunity to be assisted by a lawyer in the enquiry. The petitioner was not able to obtain an interim order from this court. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, it is submitted that the enquiry would be completed within three months. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was not completed as promised. The learned Government Pleader is not in a position to state as to whether that statement is correct. O.P No. 16248 of 1999 -2- The contention of the petitioner is that an independent police officer in Mangalore where the victims were apprehended had also registered a case under Section 376 of the IPC, although later the case was also referred as undetected. According to the petitioner that shows that the petitioner's action was also bonafide. Whatever that be, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that if the enquiry has not been taken to its logical conclusion by now, it shall not be proceeded with, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service. However, if orders have been passed pursuant to the enquiry imposing punishment to the petitioner, the petitioner would be free to challenge the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs