Back
2007 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40013
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J
G.JAYAKUMZAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP/7964/2001
SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SRI.G.SURARSHAN
An acquittal on benefit of doubt does not prevent disciplinary action based on previous misconduct if there are valid grounds for such action.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Police Constable Misconduct - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Sections pertaining to preventive detention and misconduct
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police constable, was detained due to involvement in narcotic drug trafficking after having previously faced misconduct charges. While initially acquitted of narcotic charges, the court confirmed a conviction against others in a related case.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the previous acquittal was based on lack of evidence rather than a complete exoneration. The Government's sanction to remove the petitioner from service was found valid.
Issues: Whether the government’s sanction for removal from service was justified despite the petitioner’s acquittal on narcotic charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt does not negate the grounds for disciplinary action based on earlier misconduct, especially in light of ongoing criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was a police constable. Going by the impugned Ext.P7 order, on 14/05/1993 he misconducted himself by manhandling an outsider, under the influence of alcohol, while on guard duty in the police training college. He was reinstated on 08/12/1993. However, he did not join duty. Whileso, he was involved in proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, in a case being registered against him and three others, by the officers of the Central Excise and Customs Preventive and Intelligence Unit, Thiruvananthapuram. He absconded. The Central Excise and Customs authorities came to the conclusion that the petitioner was continuously involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs. A preventive detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 , was passed against him. He was arrested and detained in Central Prison. While undergoing such detention, he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. It also appears that the representation by the petitioner against preventive detention was rejected by the Government after consideration by the advisory committee. Thereafter, as per Ext.P4 judgment, this Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on three accused persons, however, acquitting the petitioner, who was the fourth accused. A reading of Ext.P4 judgment would show that, all that the petitioner got at the hands of this Court was only an order of acquittal on benefit of doubt and, it was not a case of the petitioner coming out unblemished with a finding that the charge against him was groundless. This Court found that the prosecution had not proved the charge against the petitioner. 2. On the basis of the above said facts, I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P7 by which the Government granted sanction to the Director General of Police to take appropriate action to remove the petitioner from service.
Original Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge ms THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O.P.No. 7964 of 2001 (W)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
J U D G M E N T
8th June, 2007
