Back
2022 Supreme(Ker) 50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, Viju Abraham, JJ.
State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Home Department and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Santheep K.T. – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 8 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, Senior Government Pleader
For the Respondent:Sri. P.Nandakumar, Advocate
Point of Law: Whether the penalty is the one of barring of one increment with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect, both those penalties would come within the umbrella of Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act inasmuch as, the latter penalty of barring of increment without cumulative effect would come under Clause (i) of Sec.101(4), whereas the penalty of bar of increment with cumulative effect would come within Clause (j) of Sec.101(4).
Headnote:
Kerala Police Act – Section 101(4) & 101 (6) - Vacancy of Inspector - Promotion - Sole applicant herein has filed instant Ext.P-1 Original Application before Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Bench, and prayers in amended Ext.P-1 O.A. are to issue appropriate orders directing respondents to issue direction to convene ad-hoc Departmental promotion committee (Lower) and direction may be given to promote applicant as Inspector of police for the vacancy arisen, to issue appropriate orders to quash annexure which is illegal and arbitrary, to issue appropriate orders directing respondents not to supersede applicant in select list Annexure A12 due to reason that applicant is entitled to be promoted as ordinance is not having retrospective effect - Applicant is entitled to be promoted as Inspector of Police in zone of consideration for year and rejecting same issuing Annexure which is a recent incident and applicant is to be promoted as vacancy of Inspector was arisen in tune with annexure seniority list - Whether the said beneficial provision contained in Sec.101(6) of Kerala Police Act would be applicable in instant case.
Finding of the Court:
in the instant case, it is common ground that going by Annual Confidential Records of applicant, he was found to be otherwise entitled and eligible for promotion as Inspector of Police, and his admitted juniors in cadre of Sub Inspector of Police have been promoted on the basis of recommendations of same DPC for select list - Hence, there cannot be any doubt that Tribunal's ultimate conclusion, that Review DPC (Lower) should be convened to grant promotion to applicant as Inspector of Police for select list year, cannot be successfully challenged by the petitioners in this O.P - However, court note that the verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-3 has been rendered on 10.8.2021 whereas present O.P. has been filed before this Court - Secretary to the office of Advocate General will forward copies of this judgment to petitioners in O.P. for necessary immediate action and compliance.
Result: Original Petition (KAT) will stand dismissed
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The sole applicant herein has filed the instant Ext.P-1 Original Application O.A. No. 540/2021 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, and prayers in the amended Ext.P-1 O.A. are as follows [See pages 36 & 37 of the paper book of this OP(KAT)]:
“i. To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to issue direction to convene ad-hoc Departmental promotion committee (Lower) and direction may be given to promote the applicant as Inspector of police for the vacancy arisen on 2017.
ii. To issue appropriate orders to quash the annexure A4, Annexure A7, Annesure A13 and Annexure A14 and A18 which is illegal and arbitrary.
iii. To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents not to supersede the applicant in the select list Annexure A12 due to the reason that applicant is entitled to be promoted as on 2017 and annexure A14 ordinance is not having retrospective effect.
iv. Applicant is entitled to be promoted as Inspector of Police in the zone of consideration for the year 2017 and rejecting the same issuing Annexure A18 which is a recent incident and applicant is to be promoted above Vinoy KJ 433 and below Gireesh Kumar I, 431 as the vacancy of Inspector was arisen on 2017 in tune with annexure A3 seniority list.
v. Grant any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.”
2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P-3 order dated 10.8.2021 finally disposing of O.A. No. 540/2021 with the finding that the denial of promotion to the applicant from the post of Sub Inspector of Police to the next higher category of Inspector of Police for the select list 2017, for the reasons stated by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is illegal and ultra vires, and that the modified penalty was only bar of increment for one year without cumulative effect and therefore, the applicant will get the benefit of the protective provision contained in Sec.101(6) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, as it stood then, and hence, the said penalty cannot be taken into account for barring the promotion of the applicant and it was directed that the 4th respondent will convene the Review Departmental Promotion Committee (Lower) and pass appropriate orders including the applicant in the select list of Sub Inspector of Police fit for promotion as Inspector of Police for the select list 2017, and issue consequential orders of promotion w.e.f. the date of promotion of his immediate junior considered for select list year 2017 within 3 months, etc. It is this final verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-3 that is under challenge in the present Original Petition filed at the instance of the State of Kerala and the Police Departmental authorities concerned. The prayer in the instant Original Petition filed before this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :
“...........set aside Exhibit P3 impugned order dated 10.08.2021 in OA No.540/2021 on the file of the Hon'ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, by allowing this Original Petition.”
3. Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./respondents 1 to 4 in the O.A. and Sri.P.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P./sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal.
4. The matter in issue is regarding the claim of the applicant who is holding the post of Sub Inspector of Police for promotion to the next higher category post of Inspector of Police for the select list year 2017 & 2018. Going by the nature of the reliefs granted in this O.A. by the Tribunal, we are confining our consideration only in relation to the claim of the applicant for promotion for the select list 2017. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for preparation of select list for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police from the se
