SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 73422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ASHIK V. S S/O. VIKRAMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED – Respondent
OP(KAT) 544/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 OP(KAT) NO. 504 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2024 IN OA NO.1049 OF

2022 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

AKHIL P., AGED 31 YEARS S/O. PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, PARANKIMAVILA VEEDU, NETHAJIPURAM, SANTHIGIRI P.O, POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695589 BY ADVS.

JINSON OUSEPH BASIL MECHERY CHITRA VIJAYAN S.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME &

VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 COMMANDANT, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695005

3 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, PALACE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004

4 ADDITIONAL DIRECT GENERAL OF POLICE (INTELLIGENCE), OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECT GENERAL OF POLICE (INTELLIGENCE), PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -

695004 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 12.02.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).544/2024, THE COURT ON 13.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946 OP(KAT) NO. 544 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2024 IN OA NO.354 OF

2023 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

ASHIK, V. S,S/O. VIKRAMAN, AGED 29 YEARS UDAYANKUZHI VAYALIL VEEDU, NEDUNGANDA P.O., VARKALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 695307 BY ADVS.

O.V.MANIPRASAD JOSE ANTONY HARIKRISHNAN P.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,HOME &

VIGILANCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (INTELLIGENCE), OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (INTELLIGENCE), PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695005

3 COMMANDANT, KERALA ARMED POLICE 5TH BATTALION, KUTTIKANAM, LDUKKI, PIN - 685531

4 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695004 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 12.02.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).504/2024, THE COURT ON 13.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

O.P.(KAT)No.504/2024 The petitioner, who was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as a Police Driver, was not called for training alleging that he had indulged in certain criminal cases and thus his character and antecedents are not befitting to the said post. The petitioner challenged Annexure A9 communication in this regard by contending that the three criminal cases in which he was implicated had occurred as part of his student life activities at Mahatma Gandhi College, Thiruvananthapuram and the actual allegations made against him were only of a trifling nature.

2. He also contended that among the three cases, two cases were already over as he pleaded guilty to the charges and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,900/- each. In the third case, he was acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, after a full-fledged trial by Annexure A4 judgment, on finding that none of the witnesses including the police officials were able to identify any of the accused persons. He also attempted to clarify that the Verification Roll which he had to submit before joining the service was in a bilingual proforma and the terms used in the Malayalam language were different from the requirements given in the English version. According to him, because of that confusion, he did not furnish the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top