IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31731 of 2009(J)
1. M.IQBAL, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/11/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) Nos. 31731 & 32003 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who filed these writ petitions, is working as
Circle Inspector of Police. He was posted at Punalur, Kollam district.
2. In so far as WP(C) No.31731/2009 is concerned, the
challenge is against Ext.P3 order dated 12/10/2009, by which he
has been transferred and allotted to North Zone on Public Interest
with immediate effect. In so far as WP(C) No.32009/2009 is
concerned, the challenge is against Ext.P2, a report dated
17/10/2009, submitted by the 2nd respondent to the Inspector
General of Police. According to the petitioner, he joined Punalur in
Kollam district only on 04/06/2009.
3. It is stated that with effect from 11/10/2009 he was
granted leave for attending the Umra. It is stated that as part of the
Umra, he was attending to certain religious functions and
formalities, and that on 11/10/2009 on his way to his house, he
stopped for 2-3 minutes for performing the function ‘Porutham’
WP(C) Nos.31731 & 32003/2009
-2-
with one of his close friends, Shri.Santhosh Nair, another Circle
Inspector of Police. It is stated that on getting information that
Shri.Santhosh Nair was in the Asramom Guest House, solely with a
view to meet him and to offer ‘Porutham’, the petitioner stopped at
the Asramom Guest House, in front of room No.8, and that after
performing ‘Porutham’ he left the premises on his way to home. It
is stated that thereafter he left for Umra and on coming back, he
came to know that he was transferred by Ext.P3 order dated
12/10/2009. It is stated that there is absolutely no justification for
the transfer, which has been ordered on the basis of certain
allegations involving certain other Police Officers, and that he did
not have anything to do with that incident as alleged.
4. However, the learned Government Pleader, who obtained
instructions in the matter, submits that in relation to an incident,
which occurred at the Asramom Guest House on 11/10/2009, to
which the petitioner was also a party, several allegations have been
raised, and that on receipt of a preliminary report, the Officers
mentioned in Ext.P3 were ordered to be transferred. It is stated that
they have also received Ext.P2 report from the Superintendent of
WP(C) Nos.31731 & 32003/2009
-3-
Police which also suggests the involvement of the petitioner and
that further action is being initiated on that basis.
5. From the above, therefore, it is evident that the reason,
which led to the transfer, was the complaints that were received by
the Authorities against the Officers including the petitioner. If that
be so, this Court will not be justified in holding that the authorities
have acted illegally by transferring the petitioner.
6. In so far as WP(C) No.32003/2009 is concerned, what is
under challenge is Ext.P2, a report submitted by the Superintendent
of Police to the Inspector General of Police in relation to the incident
that happened at the Asramom Guest House on 11/10/2009. The
Superintendent of Police conducted preliminary enquiry and
submitted his report to the Inspector General of Police. This report
may be a material available before the disciplinary authority and it is
up to that authority to initiate action as he deems fit.
7. As at present, no action has been initiated against the
petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by this
report. Further any action to be initiated against the petitioner for
any misconduct committed by him, should necessarily be based on
WP(C) Nos.31731 & 32003/2009
-4-
a charge memo and with opportunity to the petitioner. For that
reason, challenge against Ext.P2 is also unsustainable, and
therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with the same.
The petitioner submits that he intends to file an application
before the Director General of Police seeking cancellation of his
transfer. This the petitioner can do, and if so, such a representation
is received, the concerned authority shall consider the same and
pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
four weeks of its receipt.
These writ petitions are dismissed as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg