Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Nitin Jamdar, CJ, BASANT BALAJI, J
K.S. Gopakumar – Appellant
Versus
The Kerala State Human Rights Commission – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28281 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Abdul Jawad, V.K.Anju, Mathew A Kuzhalanadan
For the Respondents: B.Mohanlal, T.K.Vipindas
The right to withdraw a writ petition is recognized; withdrawal does not affect the validity of previous commission orders against the petitioner for misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Police Act - Alleged human rights violation by police officer; complaint leading to multiple enquiries and disciplinary actions for dereliction of duty, non-registration of cases, and abuse of power; continuity of complaints highlights negligence. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11)
(B) Writ petition - Grounds for withdrawal; discretion of court to permit withdrawal without prejudice to rights. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed challenging the Human Rights Commission's directives regarding the Petitioner's conduct, which was criticized for human rights violations. Subsequent enquiries led to findings of misconduct and disciplinary actions against the Petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the order of the Human Rights Commission after the Petitioner opted to withdraw the writ petition.
Issues: Whether the Human Rights Commission's order was justified based on the findings against the Petitioner and the implications of withdrawal of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the right of the Petitioner to withdraw the petition and concluded that the Human Rights Commission's directives remained intact without further remedies pursued.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review of conduct leading to human rights violation (Para 2) |
| 2. intention of the petitioner to withdraw the petition (Para 3) |
| 3. outcome of the enforcement and resultant consequences (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. confirmation of human rights commission's order (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT Dated this the 06th day of August, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
Heard Ms.A.Grancy Jose, learned counsel representing Mr.K.Abdul Jawad, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.P.S.Preetha, learned counsel representing Mr.B.Mohanlal, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Mr.T.K.Vipindas, learned Senior Government Pleader for Respondent No.3.
2. The writ petition was filed in the year 2015 challenging Exhibit – P1 order dated 27 March 2015 passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission, upon a finding that the Petitioner's conduct amounted to human rights violation against the complainant, issued certain directions.
3. Since the order of the State Human Rights Commission referred to the conduct of the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 was directed to file an affidavit. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed by the State Police Chief on 29 July 2025 in which the other details pertaining to the litigation of the Petitioner before the Vigilance and Anti-orruption Bureau, the State Police Complaints Authority and the District Police Complaint Authority, Kollam, have been referred to, which read as under:
.4.. “A) A quick verification (QV:No:13/12/SRT) was ordered by Director V&ACB on the complaint of Sri. Muraleedharan Pillai alleging bribery and misuse of official power by the petitioner herein. It was entrusted to DYSP V&ACB Kollam. With regard to the enquiry conducted on the allegation of bribe in the complaint, the evidence collected were insufficient to prove the allegation. However, the Enquiry Officer recommended strict disciplinary action against the petitioner herein for the unjustified act of charge sheeting a case against an innocent person. Accordingly, the Director V&ACB sent a report to the Principal Secretary to Government, Vigilance Department requesting to initiate disciplinary action against the writ petitioner vide No. T1/21759/2013 dated 28.01.2014.
B) On 24-06-2014, the Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range vide order No A2(a)/2002/2014/TR, issued an Oral Enquiry against the petitioner on the allegation against the Writ Petitioner herein of keeping immoral relationship with the ladies who are residing within Thenmala Police Station limit. The DySP DCRB Kollam Rural was entrusted with the conduct of the Oral Enquiry. While the disciplinary proceeding was in progress, on 24-07-2014, the Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range issued another order No A2(a)/8272/2014/TR, authorising DySP DCRB Kollam Rural, who was conducting the Oral Enquiry against the writ petitioner, to conduct Oral Enquiry on the charge of unjustified act of filing final report against the innocent person by the petitioner along with the charges mentioned in the previous order. Consequently, the enquiry officer clubbed both the charges and conducted the enquiry and filed the PR .5..
minutes. Since the allegation could not be proved in the Oral Enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges and reinstated into the service considering the suspension period as service vide order No: A2(a) 2002/14/TR/A2(a)59PR/2014 TR dated 19.12.2015.
C) Consequent to the order dated 11.08.2014 in OP No.79/14 of State Police Complaints Authority, the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police Thiruvananthapuram Range initiated an Oral Enquiry against Sri. K S Gopakumar, vide order No. A2(a)- 9669/14TR Dated 26.08.2014. The alleged charge is that, while the petitioner herein was working as Sub Inspector in Punalur PS, he committed grave dereliction of duty by not registering a case either upon the written complaint of the petitioner Smt. Syamala, or upon her statement. The DySP, Crime Detachment, Kollam Rural conducted the Oral Enqui
