IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 957 of 2010(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SREEDHARAN.T, SREENILAYAM, KOOMBALA, KARASOOKA, MULLERIA, KASARAGOD. 2. SEBASTIAN.C.P., CHOORI, KUNDLU, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RANGE OFFICE, KANNUR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD. BY SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 957 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Policemen. They were placed under suspension pending disciplinary action on 29.5.1999. The suspension was in relation to an incident that occurred on 27.3.1998. In respect of the said incident, departmental enquiries were conducted twice and they were found not guilty on both the occasions. However, on further investigation a crime was registered against the petitioners. At that point of time, the petitioner approached this court by filing O.P.No. 17643/1999. As per Ext.P2 judgment, this court revoked the order placing the petitioners under suspension and ordered to reinstate them in service without prejudice to departmental and criminal proceedings. Pursuant to Ext.P2, they were reinstated in service in 1999 and thereafter they were dismissed from service w.e.f. 19.12.2007 entirely based on their conviction in C.C.No.361/04 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod, as per Exts. P3 and P4 orders. Against the said judgment in C.C.No.361/04, the petitioners have preferred an appeal as Criminal Appeal No. 441/2007. As per Ext.P5 judgment dated 13.10.2009, the Sessions Court, Kasargod quashed the judgment WPC.No.957 of 2010 : 2 : under appeal. Though the conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.361/04 were set aside the matter was remitted to the Court below with a direction to afford accused Nos. 1 and 2, a reasonable time to adduce defence evidence. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred Exts.P7 and P6 representations before the 3rd respondent seeking their reinstatement into the service. However, as per Ext.P8 they were informed that the said representation cannot be considered. It was in the said circumstances, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 2. A scanning of the materials and facts would reveal virtually, the status quo available prior to the passing of Ext.P2 was restored on account of Ext.P5 judgment. Admittedly, as per Ext.P2, under the same circumstances, the petitioners were ordered to be reinstated into the service without prejudice to the contentions of the departmental and criminal proceedings after revoking the order of suspension. Their subsequent dismissal from service as per Exts.P3 and P4 were based entirely on their conviction in C.C.No.361/04 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasargod. Ext.P3 would reveal that the said judgment was set aside and the conviction and sentence were also set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after affording the petitioners an opportunity to adduce defence evidence. In this WPC.No.957 of 2010 : 3 : circumstances, in the light of Ext.P2, the respondents are bound to re-consider and review Exts. P3 and P4 to see whether the said orders can be sustained in the light of Exts.P2 and P5. It is a fact that during the pendency of C.C. No. 361/04 they were reinstated into the service taking into account the directions in Ext.P2 judgment. Considering the fact that the situation immediately prior to the passing of Ext.P2 has been restored after Ext.P5, I think the matter requires careful consideration by the respondents. In these circumstances, the 3rd respondent, Superintendent of Police, Kasargod is directed to pass fresh orders taking into account Exts. P2 and P5. To enable the 3rd respondent to consider the claims of the petitioner as directed above, Ext.P8 is set aside. The petitioners shall submit copies of Ext.P2 and P5 judgment to the 3rd respondent along with copy to this judgment. Orders as directed above shall be passed by the 3rd respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma