Kerala High Court
Praveen.F vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA (TVM) NO.1662/2018 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
PRAVEEN.F,
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.FRANCIS,
THEKKETHAITHOTTAM, THOZHUKKAL,
NEYYATTINKARA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121
BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(INTELLIGENCE)
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL ,GOVT. PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS & T.R.RAVI, JJ.
=============================
O.P (KAT) No. 435 of 2020
[Arising out of order dated 09.10.2018 in
O.A.(TVM) No.1662 of 2018 of the KAT, Tvm. Bench]
=============================
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The prayers in the aforecaptioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:
"i) Call for the records in O.A.No.1662 of 2018 on the files of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram and allow the Ext.P1
O.A (TVM) No.1662/2016 by directing the 2 nd respondent to depute the
applicant in the next batch of training for Police Constables and set
aside Ext.P3 order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal.
ii) Award cost of this Petition."
2. Heard Sri.M.R.Sasith Panicker, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in the original petition/original applicant before the Tribunal
and Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Government Pleader appearing for
both the official respondents in the O.P./respondents in the O.A.
3. The case of the petitioner in the O.P./original applicant before
the Tribunal is to the effect that he had applied for selection to the post of
Police Constable in Kerala Armed Police I Battalion (KAP I Battalion),
pursuant to the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service
Commission and later, he was included in the rank list so prepared and
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
finalised by the Kerala Public Service Commission in respect of the said
selection and subsequently, he was also advised for recruitment as Police
Constable in KAP I Batalian as per the memo of advise issued by the Kerala
Public Service Commission. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent
Police authorities concerned had to comply the process of verification of
character and antecedents of selected candidates including the petitioner in
terms of the mandate contained in Rule 10(b)(iii) of Kerala State &
Subordinate Services Rules, Part III and then it was found that the
declaration made by the petitioner in Ext.P2 Verification Roll before the
competent authorities concerned, presumably the Police Departmental
authorities, was factually wrong and that he has made a false declaration
that he was acquitted in a criminal case mentioned therein and that as a
matter of fact it was later found that he was in fact convicted for the said
case as per Ext.P1 judgment of the criminal trial court concerned.
According to the respondent Police authorities concerned, their enquiries
found that he was thus patently dishonest in filling up Ext.P2 Verification
Roll and that considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
including the suppression of the said factual aspect and his conviction
(though his sentence is fine only), would make him not suitable for
appointment as a Police personnel. Consequently, the 1 st respondent- State
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
Government in the Home Department, has thereupon issued the impugned
Annexure A5 G.O.(Rt) No.311/2018/Home dated 29.01.2018, stating the
above said factual aspects regarding suppression and conviction in the
criminal case, etc., and holding that his character and antecedents are not
satisfactorily and that therefore he is not fit for appointment as a Police
personnel in the Police Department of the respondent-State Government.
It is this order at Annexure A5 G.O.(Rt) No.311/2018/Home dated
29.01.2018 issued by the 1st respondent Government in the Home
Department, that is essentially under challenge in Ext.P1
O.A.No.1662/2018 filed by the petitioner herein before the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench. The prayers in
Ext.P1 O.A.No.1662/2018 filed by the petitioner before the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuam Bench are as follows:
"(i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A5 order and quash the same.
(ii) To direct the respondents to depute the applicant for training to the post of
Police Constables and induct him in KAP I Battalion, Thrissur.
(iii) To direct the 1st respondent to produce the files leading to Annexure A5 order.
(iv) To issue such other orders, or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the
impugned Ext.P3 final order dated 09.10.2018 dismissing the said O.A.
holding that the certificate issued by the 2 nd respondent-Additional
Director General of Police (Intelligence) stating about the unsuitability of
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
the petitioner and the impugned Annexure A5 G.O.(Rt)
No.311/2018/Home dated 29.01.2018 issued by the 1st respondent
Government in the Home Department does not deserve any interdiction in
judicial review proceedings by the applicant before the Tribunal. It is on
this basis that the Tribunal dismissed the above said O.A.
5. We have heard both sides and given our anxious consideration
to the rival pleas. Even going by the pleadings and materials on record, it
can be seen that the petitioner was one among the accused persons arrayed
in Calender Case, C.C.No.1064/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram for offences
punishable under Section 4(1) read with Section 21 of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ("MMDR Act" for short).
It appears that the said Calender Case (C.C.No. 1064/2014 on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram)
has been instituted on the files of the learned Magistrate concerned
pursuant to registration of FIR and crime in that regard and the Police,
after conducting and completion of the investigation has finalized the same
by filing the final report/charge sheet before the learned Magistrate, which
led to the taking of cognizance of the abovesaid offences and the institution
of the said Calender case as above and three among the accused therein
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
viz., A2, A3 (petitioner/applicant) and A4 had pleaded guilty of the offences
before the learned Magistrate, which led to Annexure A2 judgment dated
06.06.2016 rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram in the said Calender Case,
C.C.No.1064/2014, whereby the learned Magistrate, after recording the
plea of guilt given voluntarily by the said three accused persons including
the petitioner, had then convicted and sentenced A2, A3
(petitioner/applicant) and A4 in respect of the abovesaid offences as per
Section 4(1) read with Section 21 of the MMDR Act and had sentenced
them to pay a fine Rs.4,000/- each and further ordered, as a default
sentence that in the event of non-payment of the said fine amount of
Rs.4,000/-, then the said accused concerned will have to undergo simple
imprisonment for 30 days. Further it appears that the case as against A1
was refiled as C.C.No.646/2016.
6. As far as we are concerned, the pertinent point of the matter is
that Ext.P1 judgment of conviction and sentence of fine has been rendered
by the learned Magistrate as per Ext.P1 as early as on 06.06.2016. It
appears that it is thereafter that Ext.P2 Verification Roll declaration has
been made by the petitioner on 14.09.2017 [see page 31 of the paper book
of this case]. In Ext.P2, the petitioner has made a categorical declaration as
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
against one of the items therein given on the top of the internal page No.6
of Ext.P2, which reads as follows:
"19 (a) Have you ever been kept 2014-2-)0 മമാസസം
എനനികക Mines and
under detention or bound Minerals Act/1957 പ്രകമാരസം കകസക ചമാർജ
down or convicted for ചചയനിട്ടുണമായനിരുന... എനമാൽ ജൂൺ മമാസസം
any offence by a court of 6-)0 ത യത C.C.No.646/2016 പ്രകമാരസം
law? Is any case pending ക ടത എന റവ മ കന ക .
trial against you in any
(emphasis applied)
criminal court at the time
of filling up this
attestation form?
(b) If the answer is "yes" full നനിലവനിൽ കകസനില."
particulars of the case,
detention, conviction,
sentence etc. should be
given
7. It will be pertinent to refer to the printed entries therein and the
written declaration made by the petitioner as against the said entry. Thus
it can be seen from a mere reading of internal page No.3 of Ext.P2
declaration given by the petitioner before the competent Police Officer
concerned on 14.09.2017 that, according to him, though he has been
arrayed as an accused in the said criminal proceedings and that the
offences are those under the MMDR Act and that the case resulted in final
report/charge sheet filed by the Police but that later in the said
Calender case, he has been acquitted of the alleged offences (ക ടത എന
റവ മ കന ക ). Incidentally, it is to be noted that the number of the
Calender case shown as in the said entry is C.C.No.646/2016, which
appears to be erroneous as the said C.C.No.646/2016 is the refiled C.C.
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
after splitting up of the main case, presumably on account of absconding of
A1. As against the main case is Calender Case C.C.No.1064/2014 on the file
of the Judicial Fist Class Magistrate Court, Neyyattinkara (the above said
error regarding the number of the Calender Case is not to be taken very
seriously). It appears that the Police after enquiries have found out that the
abovesaid declaration given as against Serial No.19 of Ext.P2 dated
14.09.2017 is patently false and wrong in asmuch as the petitioner herein
was convicted and sentenced to pay fine in the said case as per Ext.P1
judgment dated 06.06.2016 and the said conviction and sentence has been
rendered by the learned Magistrate on 06.06.2016, which is much before
the submission of Ext.P2 declaration by the petitioner on 14.09.2017 before
the competent Police Officer concerned. It is on this basis that the 2 nd
respondent Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), after due
and diligent enquiry has found out about the vital suppression and false
declaration made by the petitioner, which led to issuing a certificate
regarding the unsuitability of the petitioner, to the Governmental
authorities concerned which in turn has resulted in the consideration of the
same by the competent authority of the 1st respondent-State Government in
the Home Department, which in turn has led to the issuance of the
impugned Annexure A5 G.O.(Rt) No.311/2018/Home dated 29.01.2018 as
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
aforesaid.
8. In the light of these aspects, both the respondents cannot be
faulted for having taken the view and that too in the light of the specific
mandate contained in Rule 10(b)(iii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate
Services Rules, Part III that the petitioner has to be adjudged as not
suitable for appointment as a Police Personnel in the Police Department of
the State Government and that therefore though he has been selected for
recruitment as Police constable by the Kerala Public Service Commission,
the respondent appointing authority is not in a position to grant him
appointment order for the above said reasons. The abovesaid grounds
cited by the respondents in support to the issuance of the impugned
Annexure A5 G.O.(Rt) No.311/2018/Home dated 29.01.2018 cannot be
said to be either unreasonable, arbitrarily, illegal etc.
9. In that regard, as rightly pointed out by Sri.B.Unnikrishna
Kaimal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that
prior to the issuance of impugned Annexure A5 G.O.(Rt)
No.311/2018/Home dated 29.01.2018, the respondent State Government
had even issued Annexure A4 show cause notice dated 03.01.2018 to the
petitioner, intimating him about the above said crucial aspects regarding
the false declaration made by the petitioner and directing him to show
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
cause as to why the Government should not hold he lacks character and
integrity so as to adjudge him as not suitable for appointment to the Public
Service etc. Further, it appears that in response to Annexure A4 show
cause notice dated 03.01.2018, the petitioner had also submitted his reply
dated 04.01.2018 (in response to Annexure A4 show cause notice dated
03.01.2018) and the said reply dated 04.01.2018, the petitioner has
referred to as 4th paper in Annexure A5 G.O.(Rt) No.311/2018/Home dated
29.01.2018. Therefore, it can be seen that the abovesaid factual aspects has
also been duly put to the notice of the petitioner by the 1 st respondent-State
Government as per Annexure A4 show cause notice dated 03.01.2018 and
only after issuance of Annexure A4 show cause notice dated 03.01.2018
and consideration of the reply given thereto by the petitioner dated
04.01.2018 that the 1st respondent State Government has issued the
impugned Annexure A5 G.O.(Rt) No.311/2018/Home dated 29.01.2018.
Therefore it can be seen that the Government has issued the impugned
order only after strict compliance of the principles of fairness and natural
justice, inasmuch as petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to defend
his case by filing written submission in the matter, which in fact was also
exercised by him and considered by the respondent-State Government.
Hence it can be seen that the impugned decision making process cannot be
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
said to be tainted by any illegality, impropriety etc., and the Tribunal
cannot be faulted in any manner for having arrived at the said view as per
the impugned Ext.P3 final order dated 09.10.2018, which led to the
dismissal of the said O.A.No.1662/2018 filed by the petitioner herein.
Therefore we find that there are no grounds to interfere with the
considered order passed by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, it is
ordered that the Original Petition fails and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI, JUDGE
Pn
OP(KAT).No.435 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA(TVM) NO. 1662 OF 2018
FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE P1A (ANNEXURE A1 IN OA) TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE
MEMO EIII(1) 3136/2015 DATED 18.10.2017
ISSUED BY DISTRICT OFFICER KSPC ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P1B (ANNEXURE A2 IN OA), TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT
IN CC NO. 1064/2014 DATED 6.6.2016 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
NEYYATTINKARA.
EXHIBIT P1C (ANNEXURE A3 IN OA), TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT
NO. AZ 155361 DATED 6.6.2016.
EXHIBIT P1D (ANNEXURE A4 IN OA), TRUE COPY OF SHOW
CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED AS PER LETTER NO. SSB
3/450/2017 HOME DATED 3.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P1E (ANNEXURE A5 IN OA), TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)
NO. 311/2018 HOME DATED 29.1.2018 BY 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 F (ANNEXURE A6 IN OA), TRUE COPY OF LETTER
NO.SSB3 64/2018 HOME DATED 22.2.2018 ISSUED
BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER UNDER
1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM FILED BY
GOVERNMENT PLEADER REGARDING PRODUCTION
DOCUMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2018
IN OA (TVM)NO. 1662/2018 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED TRIBUNAL TVM.
