A disciplinary order lacking credible evidence against a police officer may be set aside.

This W.P.(C) is filed by the Petitioner, seeking to quash Ext.P4 order dated 21 May 2015 of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (KSHRC).

2. The KSHRC had vide the impugned order inter alia directed disciplinary action against the Petitioner, who was an Additional Sub Inspector of Police and against another Police Officer for allegedly causing physical harm/injury to the son of the 2^nd Respondent while in Police custody. Ext.P4 order also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and to recover the same from the Petitioner and the other officer.

3. The short facts leading to Ext.P4 order is as follows:

Ext.P2 complaint was filed before the KSHRC by the 2^nd Respondent alleging that on 05.02.2014, at around 1.00 PM, his son aged 26 years (PW1) was taken into custody by the Police near his college for having prevented a Police Officer from performing his duties. Though PW1 had explained that he was innocent of the charges and that he had only responded to an inebriated man who had been abusing students in front of the college, he was forcibly taken to the Kareelakulangara Police Station. It was only later that it was realised that the man involved was a Police Officer. The vengeful Police Officers had allegedly assaulted PW1 enroute and at the Police Station. A false crime was registered against him alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 332, 341, 323 and 294 IPC. When PW1 was later produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, he had stated about the assault by the Police. After his release from the Mavelikara Sub Jail and upon being admitted to Haripad Government Hospital, he had stated the names of the Police Officers who caused the injuries to the duty doctor. However, the said details were refused to be recorded by the doctor in the Wound Certificate and later the Wound Certificate itself was maliciously removed from the Hospital Register. Ext.P2 complaint was thus filed alleging that there had been gross human rights violation. Ext.P4 order was rendered by the KSHRC therein which is impugned in this W.P.(C).

4. Heard Sri.Pramod J. Dev, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri.T.Madhu, Advocate for the 2^nd Respondent and Sri.Tekchand, Government Pleader for the 3^rd Respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no material or evidence before the KSHRC to arrive at the conclusions seen in Ext.P4 order. The reliance placed had been solely on the statements made by PWs 1 to 3. There was no sufficient material in the depositions or documents to conclude that the Petitioner had assaulted PW1. The criminal case, viz., CC No.627 of 2017 filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Haripad, arising from the said incident arraying the Petitioner as a co-accused was tried and ended in acquittal. The charges alleged were held not to be proved. Thus the KSHRC had no material whatsoever before it to arrive at the conclusions in Ext.P4 order or to issue the directions made therein.

Ext.P4 order is thus fit to be quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd Respondent and the learned Government Pleader defended the impugned order of the KSHRC and submitted that the same had been validly arrived at. The dismissal of the criminal case CC No.627 of 2017 against the Petitioner by the Magistrate, it is submitted, does not by itself impact the orders of the KSHRC. It is thus prayed that the W.P.(C) may be dismissed.

7. Ext.P4 order has been rendered relying on the statement of PWs 1 to 3. PW1 is the alleged victim and PW2 is his friend who was purportedly present at the scene. Their statements unless corroborated could not have been relied on by itself. As regards the documents