Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.GIRI, J
RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI P.D. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/18877/2009
Suspension - Police Service - Act Section List - The court addressed the delay in decision-making regarding charges against a police officer, emphasizing the need for timely action to ensure the officer's probation and rights are upheld based on the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer reinstated after suspension, challenged the non-declaration of his probation in the Circle Inspector position, citing delays in processing charges against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in decision-making by the government regarding the proposal for framing charges was unjustified and directed timely action to be taken.
Issues: The main issue was whether the government unlawfully delayed its decision on framing charges against the petitioner, affecting his probation declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that administrative delays in processing cases and charges can infringe upon an individual's employment rights, emphasizing the principle of timely justice.
Final Decision: The court directed the government to decide on the framing of charges within two months.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner entered service as Sub Inspector Trainee on
20.4.1995 pursuant to an advice by the Public Service Commission. He was promoted as Circle Inspector of Police. While he was serving as Circle Inspector of Police in the Thiruvananthapuram Range, an allegation arose as regards police atrocities at Killi. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission investigated and drew up a report. There was a recommendation to place seven police officers under suspension. This included the petitioner. Petitioner was placed under suspension but later by Ext.P3, he was reinstated. He is now working as Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta. Petitioner's grievance arose from the fact that his probation in the post of Circle Inspector of Police has not been declared so far. Hence the writ petition.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Paragraph 4 of the same reads as follows:-
“Even though the petitioner was reinstated into service and completed five years of service, the suspension period has not been regularized. This is due to the non disposal of the Joint Oral Enquiry ordered against him. The Memo of charges has been sent to Government for approval. Increment in the cadre of Circle Inspector of Police will not be denied if he is exonerated from the charges and period of suspension is ordered to be treated as duty. One vacancy has already been reserved for him to sanction Higher Grade.”
3. Ext.R2(a) request made by the Director General of Police for an approval of the memo of charges as prepared by the Enquiry Officer was submitted on 26.2.2008. But the Government has not taken a decision so far. I do not think this is justified.
4. Accordingly, 1st respondent, Government is directed to take a decision on the proposal for framing charges as against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.R2(a) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the Government does not grant approval for the proposal made by the DGP as contained in Ext.R2(a) or does not pass any orders within the aforementioned time frame, then the petitioner's probation in the post of Circle Inspector of Police shall be declared and orders in this regard shall be passed by the Head of the Department without any delay.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
V.GIRI, Judge mrcs
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
