IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18722 of 2011(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. N.NANDAGOPALAN, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, SCPO-8373, E COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, TRIVANDRUM CITY. 2. B.VIJAYAKUMAR, SCPO-1350, C COMPANY, A.R.CAMP TRIVANDRUM CITY. 3. SHINU T.S. NAIR, SCPO-1142, H COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, TRIVANDRUM CITY. 4. ANIL KUMAR, SCPO-7393, F COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, TRIVANDRUM CITY. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (KERALA POLICE CHIEF), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTHERN RANGE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695 001. 3. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 18722 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8-7-2011 AS TRO NO. 106/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF AJITH, CIVIL POLICE OFFICER PRODUCED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(b) : COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.18722 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 5th August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are Senior Civil Police Officers working in the Armed Reserve Camp, Thiruvananthapuram City. This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P1 order whereby the petitioners were transferred and posted to different Armed Reserve Camps and Wings. In Ext.P1 it is stated that the said order has been issued on public interest. The petitioners have raised many a contentions to assail Ext.P1. It is contended that transfer has been ordered virtually as a punishment. Though the reason for the said transfer has been assigned as public interest, the said order was, in fact, passed with a malafide intention. According to them, it is the complaint preferred by one Ajith that led to the issuance of Ext.P1. In Ext.P1 a letter dated 3.5.2011 from the District Police Chief has been referred to. It is after referring to the same that the petitioners were ordered to be transferred as per Ext.P1. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the second respondent. A perusal of the pleadings of the petitioners and also the pleadings in the counter affidavit would reveal that an incident that occurred at about 12 noon on 9.4.2011 is the genesis of WP(C).No.18722/2011 2 Ext.P1 order of transfer. True that, the version with respect to the said incident given by the petitioners and the version given by the second respondent vary. At the same time, they would go to show that an unpleasant situation occurred within the Armed Reserve Camp, Thiruvananthapuram City on 9.4.2011. According to the petitioners, there is no reason or justification for putting the entire blame on them and that the complainant Ajith is also equally responsible for the said untoward incident. Along with the counter affidavit the second respondent produced an enquiry report as Ext.R2(b). A perusal of the same would reveal that it is not a report submitted the District Police Chief whilst, it is a report submitted by the Assistant Commandant III, Armed Reserve Camp, Thiruvananthapuram City to the Commandant, A.R. Group, Thiruvananthapuram City. A scanning of the said report would reveal that an untoward incident which should not have occurred within an Armed Reserve Camp had occurred on 9.4.2011. Persons who are responsible to maintain law and order, going by the report, themselves created such a situation in a uniformed force. Occurrence and recurrence of such incidents should be avoided and timely action is required in the said circumstances. In the circumstances, based on Ext.R2(b) report the impugned action was resorted. That cannot be described as a punishment. Evidently, there is nothing in Ext.R2(b) WP(C).No.18722/2011 3 which would go against the third petitioner. In Ext.R2(b) it is stated that a statement was obtained from the third petitioner. Apart from that, there is no allegation that he had any role in the said untoward incident. Merely because the said incident led to the issuance of Ext.P1 cannot be a reason to presume that it is a punishment. A perusal of Ext.P1 did not reveal existence of an element or desire to impose a punishment on the petitioners. May be the said action is detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. But, that would not by itself, make the action punitive as long as the action was not motivated by a desire to inflict a punishment for the alleged flaw or wrong. I am fortified in my view by a decision of this Court in Dinamony v. Dt. Supdt. of Police, Kollam (1994 (1) KLT 326). In the light of Ext.R2(b) I find no reason to disagree with the reasons stated in the counter affidavit that the order of transfer was issued on public interest. The averments in the counter affidavit would further make it clear that it would not cast any stigma on the petitioners. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P1 needs no interference. As already noticed, Ext.R2(b) report that led to the issuance of Ext.P1 would reveal the absolute absence of any allegation against the third petitioner. Counter affidavit also did not disclose his involvement. In the said circumstances, there is no justification to transfer and post the third petitioner from the WP(C).No.18722/2011 4 Armed Reserve Camp, Thiruvananthapuram City in view of the aforesaid report. The third petitioner is not liable to be transferred based on Ext.R2(b) report or in connection with the said incident. In the said circumstances, Ext.P1, to the extent it orders transfer and posting of the third petitioner, is liable to be set aside. I do so. It is made clear that Ext.P1 to the extent it pertains to others is not interfered with. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS