Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39419
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S. Manikumar, CJ
JOBY THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Shajin S.Hameed
For the Respondents: Mr.Tek Chand, Mr.Joseph Rony Jose
The court held that recovery from a police officer's salary cannot occur after exoneration from negligence claims, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness.
Headnote:(A) Human Rights Commission Act - Section 2 - Jurisdiction of Kerala State Human Rights Commission to direct recovery of damages from police officers for dereliction of duty noted - Petitioner subjected to salary recovery without proper notice is a violation of natural justice. (Paras 2, 12, 14)
(B) Personnel Administration - Disciplinary proceedings and exoneration of police personnel from all charges arising from claims of negligence leading to vehicle damage established - Orders for remuneration from salary cannot stand post-exoneration. (Paras 9, 11, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a police officer, challenged recovery orders from his salary due to alleged negligence and mismanagement of a vehicle detained for transporting river sand, which on examination was found to not be river sand.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioner was wrongfully subjected to recovery as he was exonerated in subsequent departmental inquiries regarding his alleged negligence.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the recovery of Rs. 10,000 from the petitioner was justified given that he had been exonerated of all related charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could not be penalized via salary recovery for actions no longer deemed negligent after departmental exoneration.
Result: The recovery order against the petitioner was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the complaint and initial orders by the human rights commission. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments concerning the lack of notice and opportunity to defend against claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. disciplinary proceedings and findings of exoneration from neglect. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. authority for recovery orders contingent on proven dereliction of duty. (Para 12) |
| 5. final ruling on the legality of the recovery order against the petitioner. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, C. J.
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 4threspondent's lorry, bearing registration number KL-17-D-2437, was seized, alleging transportation of river sand, against which, 4threspondent 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 realizin
