IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 17004 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.CHANDRAN, ARMED POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, SBCID, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.R.SRINATH SRI.P.PRASANTH SRI.M.M.LALBIND SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (STATE POLICE CHIEF), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ARMED POLICE BATTALIONS, ARMED POLICE BATTALION HEAD QUARTERS, POLICE TRANING COLLEGE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 17004 OF 2011 APPENDI X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2009 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2011 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2011 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.7.2011 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2011 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.6.2002 OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2002 OF THE THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE , AP BATTALION. P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2009 OF THE IG OF POLICE, SCRB. P9: TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT ORDER DATED 13.7.2009 OF THE CI OF POLICE, SCRB. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.17004 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Armed Police Sub Inspector in the State Special Branch Crime Investigation Department (SBCID) (Head Quarters). This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 order. As per Ext.P2, it was ordered to repatriate the petitioner to MSP, Malappuram with immediate effect. Along with the reply affidavit, the petitioner has produced Exts. P4 to P9. As per Ext.P6, the service book of the petitioner was forwarded to the Commandant, S.A.P, Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of declaration of probation of the petitioner with instruction to retransmit the same, thereafter. Thereupon, as per Ext.P7, his probation was declared. At the time of issuance of Exts.P6 and P7, the petitioner was working in the State Crime Records Bureau. It is stated in Ext.P7 as hereunder:- “Sri.D.Chandran, APSI, SAP Battalion, Thiruvananthapuram commenced the period of probation in the category of APSI w e f 12.1.96 FN. W.P.(C) NO.17004 of 2011 2 The period of probation is one year on duty within a continuous period of 2 years. He has not availed any kind of leave during the period of probation. As such the period of probation was completed on 11.1.97 AN. His work and conduct during the period are reported to be satisfactory. Sri.D.Chandran, is therefore, declared to have completed the period of probation in the category of APSI satisfactorily w e f 12.1.97.” The said order was passed pursuant to Ext.P6 dated 13.6.2002. Besides Exts.P6 and P7, the petitioner is also placing reliance on Ext.P8 to contend that his parent unit is SAP Thiruvananthapuram. As per Ext.P8, the Inspector General of Police, State Crime Records Bureau repatriated the petitioner to his parent unit viz., SAP, Thiruvananthapuram from State Crime Records Bureau. In view of the said facts emerging from records, it is contended that all along, the parent unit of the petitioner was taken as SAP, Thiruvananthapuram and in fact, it is his parent unit. 2. A statement has been filed in this Writ petition on behalf of the second respondent. In the said statement, it is stated that the petitioner was originally appointed as Police Constable in MSP Battalion, Malappuram with effect from 1.1.1988 as per the Public Service Commission advice No.GRIII (4) 12678/81/GW dated 3.11.1986. It is further stated therein that it was while working therein that he was transferred to SAP Battalion, Thiruvananthapuram with effect from 1.6.1989 on inter-battalion transfer. The learned Government Pleader has W.P.(C) NO.17004 of 2011 3 also produced a copy of the service book of the petitioner. The first entry in the service book would reveal that the petitioner was originally appointed as Police Constable in SAP Battalion of Kerala State. The subsequent entry made on 7.6.1988 reads thus:-” “ Allotted to the strength of MSP, Malappuram with effect from 1.6.1988 forenoon for administrative purpose as per letter No.A5-588586/APE dated 16.5.1988.” (emphasis supplied) It would suggest that the allotment of the petitioner to the strength of MSP Malappuram with effect from 1.6.1988 was ordered only on administrative purpose. As already noticed hereinbefore, in paragraph 4 of the statement, it is stated that the petitioner was originally appointed as Police Constable in MSP Battalion Malappuram with effect from 1.1.1988 and he was transferred to SAP Battalion with effect from 1.6.1989. If that be so, under what circumstances, he was ordered to be allotted to the strength of MSP Malappuram with effect from 1.6.1988 on administrative purpose is not discernible. Obviously, there is incongruity and incompatibility while perusing the entires in the service book and the statements made on behalf of the second respondent. It is apposite to refer to the statements made in the reply affidavit. In paragraph 3 thereunder, it is stated thus:- “I was advised for appointment of the KPSC No.Gr.III W.P.(C) NO.17004 of 2011 4 (4)12678/81/GW dated 3.11.1986 in the SAP Battalion. Though the advice is dated 3.11.1986 since there was no vacancy in SAP then I was posted in KAP I Battalion at Thrissur on 1.1.1988.” Prima facie, the entries in the service book as also in Exts.P6, P7 and P8 would lend support to the contentions raised by the petitioner that he was originally appointed in SAP and not in MSP Malappuram. That apart, it is not known as to why the petitioner was ordered to be allotted to the strength of MSP Malappuram on administrative purpose by letter dated 16.5.1988 if he was originally appointed in MSP Malappuram w.e.f 1.1.1988. Now, it is to be noted that as per Ext.P2, the petitioner was not actually transferred to MSP Malappuram whilst it is ordered as repatriation to the parent unit. In this context, Ext.P8 assumes relevance. As already noticed hereinbefore, as per Ext.P8, the petitioner while working in the State Crime Records Bureau was repatriated to his parent unit SAP Thiruvananthapuram as per order dated 7.7.2009. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the matter requires a serious consideration by the second respondent. In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder:- The petitioner may file a proper representation carrying the aforesaid contentions and also by appending copies of all relevant W.P.(C) NO.17004 of 2011 5 documents referred hereinbefore, to the second respondent through proper channel within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such a representation along with the documents, the second respondent shall consider all the aspects of the issue in the light of this judgment and after perusing all the relevant documents and pass appropriate orders in the matter. Till such a decision is taken and communicated to the petitioner, Ext.P2 order shall be kept in abeyance. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.17004 of 2011 6 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.17004 of 2011 7