Back
2021 Supreme(Ker) 1016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.
Joby Thomas S/o P.C. Thomas – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala Rep. by the Chief Secretary – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7469 of 2021
Decided On : 09-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shajin S. Hameed.
For the Respondents: Tek Chand, Joseph Rony Jose.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that subsequent disciplinary proceedings exonerating the petitioner influenced the court's decision to set aside the recovery order.
Headnote:
Human Rights Commission - Recovery of Damages - Kerala State Human Rights Commission Act, 1998 - Section 30 - The court discussed the provisions of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission Act, 1998, particularly Section 30, which empowers the Commission to award compensation for damages. The court highlighted the Commission's power to delegate the recovery of damages and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, ultimately exonerating him of all charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and the District Police Chief directing recovery of damages from his salary. The case arose from a complaint regarding the seizure of a vehicle and alleged careless action by the police officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent disciplinary proceedings exonerated the petitioner of all charges, rendering the recovery order unjust. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the recovery order.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the recovery order and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the subsequent disciplinary proceedings that exonerated the petitioner, leading to the conclusion that the recovery order was unjust.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the recovery order was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
1. Being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order dated 11.01.2019 in HRMP No. 8202 of 2017 passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and Ext.P3 proceedings of the District Police Chief, Ernakulam dated 02.03.2021, directing recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and to remit the same to the account of the 4th respondent, instant writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:
“(a) issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records leading to Ext.P2 order dated 11.01.2019 in HRMP No. 8202/2017 of the 2nd respondent Kerala State Human Rights Commission and quash the same.
(b) issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records leading to Ext.P3 order passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same.”
2. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as hereunder:
The 4th respondent filed Ext.P1 complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, arraying the Sub Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station, holding charge as on 19.02.2016 and the Revenue Divisional Officer as opposite parties.
According to the petitioner, it is alleged in the complaint that the 4th respondent's lorry, bearing registration number KL-17-D-2437, was seized, alleging transportation of river sand, against which, 4th respondent filed W.P. (C) No. 26293 of 2015 before this Court and the writ court on 01.09.2015, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna, to check the sand, and to take action, on the basis of the report. On examination, it was found that the sand is not river sand. The Geologist reported that if the complainant pays an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as fine, the same could be returned to him. Hence, the RDO ordered to return the vehicle to him, but the opposite party did not return the vehicle saying that the case is pending before the Magistrate's Court. Again, when the complainant approached the RDO, he ordered to release the vehicle as per the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 26293 of 2015 as pendency of case before the Magistrate's Court is not a bar. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kolathur was directed to return the vehicle to the complainant and produce the ‘Kaicheetu’ before him.
Petitioner has submitted that on 09.02.2016, when the complainant approached the police station for receiving the vehicle, it was found that all four wheels, tires, tubes, discs, batteries starter, tools etc. were missing from the vehicle. When the complainant informed the said fact to 1st opposite party, he asked him to take the vehicle by placing new wheels and battery. The value of the vehicle was Rs. 6 lakhs and the lost parts would value Rs. 1,00,000/-. Further, the 1st opposite party threatened the complainant that he would register a crime against him for obstructing his official duty, if he is not leaving the place. The complainant again went to the station requesting to take steps for releasing the vehicle and he came to know that a false case has been registered that the parts of the vehicle was stolen. Before the Human Rights Commission it was contended that the seizure of vehicle claiming transportation of river sand and the 1st opposite party's careless action as the custodian of the vehicle were unjust and violation of human rights.
The Kerala State Human Rights Commission, after obtaining a report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, issued notice to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mr. Vishnu, who was holding office on 19.02.2016, after hearing him, passed Ext.P2 order, delegating the 4th respondent to approach the civil court, for realizing the amount for damages. However, the Commission went on to find that the 4th respondent is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the responsible police officers. It was also ordered that the amount has to be paid by the Home Department, and thereafter, the same has to be realised from the officers. Based on Ext.P2 report, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P3 order, according sanction to effect recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and
