IMPORTANT POINT
The issuance of integrity certificates must be based on a thorough examination of the officer's conduct and pending legal matters, with judicial review limited to cases of mala fides or serious procedural violations.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.Dias, J.

In 2017, the petitioner’s two minor daughters died under suspicious circumstances. Though a criminal case was registered, the investigation was flawed. A few persons were arraigned as accused in the crime for committing the offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and offences under the Indian Penal Code. However, the accused were acquitted in the crime. In an appeal filed against the order of acquittal, this Court found serious illegalities in the investigation and trial and consequentially ordered a re-trial. During the re-trial, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation. Without conducting a proper investigation, the CBI filed a perfunctory charge sheet. The Trial Court refused to accept the charge sheet and ordered further investigation. The subsequent events that transpired have led to the conclusion of the murder of the petitioner’s daughters. Now, the CBI is conducting the investigation into the homicidal angle. The 5th respondent was the first Investigating Officer. The petitioner challenges the Integrity Certificate issued to the 5th respondent for conferring him with the Indian Police Service (IPS). The 5th respondent is presently holding the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS cadre) in the State Police. Several criminal prosecutions are pending against him. The 5th respondent has made obnoxious remarks against the petitioner and her deceased daughters through the visual medium to insult and humiliate them. The petitioner has initiated criminal prosecution against the 5th respondent for committing the offence under Section 23(1) of the POCSO Act. The 5th respondent’s application for conferment of IPS is under consideration by the 1st respondent, for which purpose an integrity certificate is required from the 2nd respondent. Although the 2nd respondent was initially reluctant to grant the integrity certificate, the same was issued under the cover of Ext.P2 judgment passed by this Court. The 2nd respondent has suppressed the material facts regarding the pendency of criminal prosecution against the 5th respondent. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representations. As the Authorities have flouted the directions in the judgment, the petitioner had filed Contempt Case (C) No. 1778 of 2024 before this Court. Then, the 2nd respondent submitted that an integrity certificate was issued. Nevertheless, as the directions in Ext.P3 judgment were violated, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to comply with the directions. Consequentially, the 4th respondent has superficially considered the matter and rejected the petitioner's grievance by impugned Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 order is unjustifiable, capricious, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed. Ext.P4 evidences a total non-application of mind. The petitioner has highlighted the misconduct and unfairness committed by the 5th respondent in several complaints. A Division Bench of this Court has observed that the investigation conducted in connection with the death of the petitioner’s daughters shocked its conscience. There is no provision in the Indian Police Services Rules or the related rules that permits the Government to favourably consider the request of an accused police officer. An officer to be recruited to the service has to be a person of high integrity, dignity and honesty, which the 5th respondent lacks. The Government is bound to consider the petitioner’s grievances, and she ought to have been heard before issuing Ext.P4 certificate. Therefore, Ext.P4 is to be declared illegal and is to be set aside.

2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the writ petition is not maintainable in law because the petitioner has no personal grievance to be redressed, especially because Ext.P4 concerns the 5th respondent’s service as a police per