Judges : P.A.MOHAMMED,M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR
Rajan - Appellant
Versus
Director General of Police - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 296 of 1999 & connected cases
Decided On : 06/30/1999
Advocates Appeared :
K. Ramakumar For Appellants Government Pleader (Alexander Thomas) For Respondents
Transfer - Police Personnel - Police Forces (Restriction of rights) Act, 1966, S.3; Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, S.3 - The court discussed the transfers of police personnel from the North Zone to different districts and the alleged involvement in activities of the Police Welfare Association. The court considered the provisions of the Police Forces (Restriction of rights) Act, 1966 and the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 in justifying the transfers as being in public interest.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the transfer of police personnel from the North Zone to different districts, allegedly due to their involvement in activities of the Police Welfare Association.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfers were justified in public interest, considering the alleged involvement of the appellants in activities of the Police Welfare Association and the impact on the discipline and morale of the police force.
Issues: The issues involved the justification of the transfers as being in public interest, the alleged malafides behind the transfers, and the applicability of transfer norms and guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfers can be made in public interest, even if they cause inconvenience to the employees, and that violation of transfer guidelines is not a ground for interference under Art.226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, finding the transfers to be justified in public interest and without malafides.
M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.
These appeals arise from the judgments passed by a learned single judge of this Court disposing of OP.Nos. 21216/98,23163/98,21914/98 and 21770/98, respectively. Common contentions were raised in these Original Petitions and they were hence disposed of as per a common judgment.
2. The challenge in these Original Petitions was with regard to the transfer of the petitioners who are police personnel from the North Zone to different districts like Palakkad, Idukki, Ernakulam Rural, Thrissur etc. According to the petitioners, the transfers are vitiated by malafides and issued only at the instance of the present office bearers of the Kerala Police Association, Kannur District who are known
supporters of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), whose nominee holds the Home Portfolio.
3. In the counter filed in O.P. 21770/98 and in the statements in the other cases, it is alleged that the transfer was ordered in public interest and as such the question arising for decision in these appeals is whether the transfers can be justified as done in public interest.
4. Basic facts alleged in the counter may be summarised as follows:- A case had to be registered against certain police constables as Crime No. 268/97 of Koothuparamba Police Station and some of them were arrested. Their colleagues did not relish the action and they conspired together and distributed certain pamphlets ridiculing, criticising and abusing the senior police officers who were dealing with the investigation in the aforesaid case. The pamphlets actually came out in the name of the Police Welfare Association and enquiries made with regard to their source revealed that the petitioners were the persons behind it. Police is a disciplined force and it was felt desirable that such an action on the part of the members of the force was to be nipped in the bud. The pamphlets distributed by the petitioners would generate ill-feeling in the minds of policemen as also affect the morale of the police force. It was in these circumstances that the transfer was found necessary. There was no undue influence at the instance of the Kerala Police Association as alleged.
5. In Writ Appeal 315/99, an affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent State and that is to the following effect. Members of the Kerala Police were prohibited from forming any association. The only exception was the Kerala Police Constabulary Association which was approved by Government as per G.O. (MS) 134/79/Home dated 4.10.79. Clause 6(b)(10) of the Government Order prohibits formation of any other association by them. Art.33 in Part III of the Constitution allows abridgement of the rights with regard to certain categories of citizens which will include members of the police force also. The Parliament has accordingly enacted Act 33 of 1966, ie., the Police Forces (Restriction of rights) Act, 1966. S.3 thereof prohibits the members of the police force from being in any way associated with any association or class of trade unions except those of purely social, recreational or religious nature. Clause (b) prohibits participation of members of the police force in meetings or demonstrations organised by any body of persons for political purposes. S.4 prescribes punishment for violation as imprisonment for a term which may extend two years or with fine. Further the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 penalise activity for spreading disaffection among the police. S.3 thereof provides penalty therefor as imprisonment upto a term of 6 months or fine.
6. The enquiries made by the Department showed that at about 4 pm on 9.11.98, 23 police personnel including the present appellants assembled at the N.G.O. Association Conference Hall, Thrissur and conducted a meeting and formed an unlawful body by name'Police Welfare Association' with a view to cause disaffection among the members of police force including superior police officers who were dealing with the Koothuparamba Police firing case a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.