The integrity certificate issuance is a procedural matter and does not preclude independent assessment by the Selection Committee regarding an officer's suitability for promotion.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN JAMDAR, C.J.

1. By this appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the Appellant/Original Petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24 December 2024 dismissing W.P. (C) No. 31104 of 2024 filed by the Appellant.

2. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India, Respondent No. 2 is the State of Kerala, Respondent No. 3 is the Chief Secretary, and Respondent No. 4 is the Home Secretary. Respondent No. 5 is holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Non-I.P.S. cadre, in the State Police.

3. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner sought to question the issuance of Exhibit-P4 Government order dated 18 August 2024 by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, rejecting her representation against Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner had also raised objections regarding the issuance of integrity certificate to Respondent No. 5 and to withdraw the same.

4. The Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (Regulations of 1955) deal with promotions to I.P.S. service. Regulation 5 concerns the preparation of a list of suitable officers. The Government of India’s Decision below Rule 5 of the Regulations of 1955 in clause 1.1 refers to the issuance of a certificate by the Chief Secretary of the State Government certifying the integrity of the candidate. This is the integrity certificate referred to in the petition.

5. The case of the Petitioner is that in the year 2017, her two minor daughters died under suspicious circumstances. The crime was registered under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the Petitioner, due to the faulty and illegal investigation, the accused were acquitted, and the Court directed a re-trial and the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

6. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 5, the then investigating officer, who now holds the charge of Superintendent of Police, could not have been given an integrity certificate as he was responsible for the faulty investigation. The Petitioner also contended that Respondent No. 5 had made derogatory remarks against the Petitioner and her daughters and that the Petitioner had initiated prosecution against Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner had also filed a writ petition wherein this Court had directed Respondent No. 2 to consider her representation. This representation was rejected, and the integrity certificate came to be issued, which, according to the Petitioner, ought not to be issued as Respondent No. 5 is not a person with integrity and honesty, which is required for public service. On this ground, the Petitioner had sought to challenge the issuance of the integrity certificate.

7. Respondent No. 5 had filed a counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge questioning the locus of the Petitioner and contending that the petition is not maintainable. Respondent No. 5 also contended that in service matters, only the affected party could file an application; the Petitioner cannot be considered as an affected party for consideration of promotion to Respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 denied the pendency of a criminal case and stated that the proceedings had been quashed. He also denied making any derogative remarks against the Petitioner and her children. It was contended that Respondent No. 5 has 29 years of unblemished service, has secured 70 Good Service entries, and has been honoured with a “Badge of Honour” by the State Police. It was also his contention that the Court had appreciated the investigation by Respondent No. 5 in respect of the death of Petitioner’s daughters.

8. After considering the rival contentions and the judicial pronouncements cited, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment, against which the present appeal is filed.

9. We have heard Mr. P.V. Jeevesh, learned counsel f