High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
T.P. RAVEENDRAN v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - WP(C) No. 15170 of 2006(E)  RD-KL 798 (18 September 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 15170 of 2006(E)
1. T.P. RAVEENDRAN, (HC.4018,
2. K.P. VENUGOPAL, (HC.4042,
3. K.T. DEVASSIA (PC 5676, ATHOLY POLICE
4. P. JAYACHANRAN (PC.6312,
5. P.K. VIJAYAN, (HC 6184,
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, JW.P.(C)NO.15170 of 2006
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2006
The petitioners 1,2 and 4 belong to the cadre of Head Constable and the petitioners 3 and 4 belong to the category of Police Constables. As per Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent on 9.7.2005, the petitioners were placed under suspension alleging serious misconduct connected with their duties in detecting the commission of offences involving unlawful transportation of tube money and taking the culprits into custody.
2. The allegations against the petitioners came to the notice of the first respondent from a source through wire less message referred to in that order. This writ petition has been filed to quash Ext.P1.
3. The first respondent has filed a statement as directed by this Court. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that no crime case has been registered in respect of the alleged incident and that the petitioners had done their duty sincerely and earnestly and the wireless message came from sources which had entertained grudge against the petitioners for the active work done by them against the culprits who are influential. In support of the above contention, the petitioners make a reference to Exts.P5 and P6 and the further fact that the special squad which was set up to detect the offences relating to W.P.(C)15170/2006 2 unauthorised transportation of money through tube wells was abolished subsequently to help the offenders.
2. The contention of the petitioners that they are innocent and the action taken against them cannot be sustained in law is primarily a matter for the statutory authorities to examine and come to valid conclusions in the light of the enquiry or investigation conducted by the Vigilance Department since such an enquiry has already been ordered. The petitioners have filed Ext.P7 representation dated 30.8.2006 before the second respondent for a review of the order of suspension passed by the first respondent. Rule 23 of the Kerala Police Departmental Enquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules of 1958 provides for an appeal to be filed before the higher authority. Hence the second respondent shall consider Ext.P7 as an appeal filed under the aforesaid statutory provision and dispose of the same taking into account all relevant facts germane for consideration in the circumstances. Orders shall be passed on Ext.P7 after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard within one month from the date of the petitioners producing a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.