Kerala High Court
Shaiju R vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
O.P. (KAT) No. 111 of 2025
-:1:-
2025:KER:56806
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 111 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.01.2025 IN OA NO.1841 OF 2022 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
SHAIJU R,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. RAVIKUMAR, CIVIL POLICE OFFICER-6325 (REMOVED FROM
SERVICE), ARMED RESERVE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT DARSANA NAGAR-
88, PATTATHANAM P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691021
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN
SHRI.V.ASWIN
SHRI VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON
SHRI.VIVEK NAIR P.
SHRI.M.R.RADHAKRISHNAN
SMT.SRUTHI SREEKUMAR
SHRI.G.GOWARDHAN DEV G. NAIR
SHRI.ANANTHU R MURALI
SMT.ADEEBA AMEEN
SHRI.GAUTHAM HRITHEEKAAR S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME &
VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
O.P. (KAT) No. 111 of 2025
-:2:-
2025:KER:56806
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
& CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM CITY, PIN - 691008
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI A.J. VARGHESE
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.07.2025, THE COURT ON 29.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P. (KAT) No. 111 of 2025
-:3:-
2025:KER:56806
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
O.P. (KAT) No. 111 of 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner, a Police Constable, was removed from service
while working as a Watch and Ward on deputation at the Kerala
Legislative Assembly. The parent department of the petitioner was
the Kerala Armed Police Battalion. The allegations against the
petitioner were of serious nature, involving molestation and
misappropriation of 50 sovereigns of gold from a lady who was his
neighbour. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner was guilty.
The petitioner exhausted all the statutory remedies available to him.
The penalty imposed on him was removal from service.
2025:KER:56806
2. The petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging the
disciplinary action. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the matter.
The petitioner raised a challenge on two grounds. Firstly, he would
submit that he had not committed any indiscipline while in discharge
of his normal duties and responsibilities and therefore, any of his
conduct in the private realm should not be subject to disciplinary
proceedings unless the alleged offensive conduct is found and proved
in any forum at the instance of the aggrieved person. The second
point is the violation of Rule 10(a) of the Kerala Police Departmental
Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred
to as 'KPDIP&A Rules').
Ground No.1:
3. Admittedly, the petitioner was subjected to criminal
prosecution, and he was acquitted as the prosecutor turned hostile
and did not support the prosecution's case. The question thus arises
whether any misconduct beyond the official duties and
responsibilities can form the subject matter of disciplinary action or
not. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in State of
2025:KER:56806
Kerala v. P. V. Kuryan [ 2024 (1) KHC 615].
4. We find that the arguments of the petitioner are untenable
for more than one reason. The petitioner's conduct as a public
servant was required to be maintained in both the public and private
affairs, befitting the standard expected from public servants. If the
public servants' conduct in a private place resulted in lowering the
image of public servants in public service, it necessarily demands
such disciplinary action. The police service is one of the services on
which the public reposes its confidence, and it demands exhibition of
a high level of propriety, courtesy and compassion appropriate to the
occasion. If any of the individual conduct in private affairs is not in a
manner befitting the standards of a public servant and offending the
Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1960, it necessarily demands
disciplinary action. This Court in P. V. Kuryan (supra) has dealt with
a case where there was no exhibition of such conduct to lower the
image of a public servant. That was a case where a police officer was
found with a lady in a private place, and proceedings were initiated
on the assumption that he had an illicit relationship with her. It is in
2025:KER:56806
that context, this Court held that the Government, as an employer,
cannot remain as a moral police in respect of the private affairs of a
government servant. Here, in this case, a prosecution has been
lodged. The conduct itself came into public view and lowered the
image of the public service. Therefore, the disciplinary action was
justified against him.
Ground No.2:
5. Rule 10(a) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries,
Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 states as follows:
"10. Departmental inquiry regarding matters before a Court.- (a) Final orders in
a departmental inquiry, which is subjudice, shall be issued only after the matter
has been disposed of in Court."
6. The disciplinary proceedings were concluded before the
culmination of the criminal case. The question is whether the
subsequent acquittal would have a bearing on the matter on account
of the violation of Rule 10(a), KPDIP&A Rules.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section
101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, which states as follows:
"(8)(1) Department level enquiry proceedings may be initiated against any
2025:KER:56806
Police Officer for the same matter even though he was exonerated by a Criminal
Court after trial, he shall not be subjected to penalties on the basis of the same
facts in department level enquiry.
(2) A Police Officer if convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude or
serious misconduct the disciplinary authority concerned or the State Police Chief
or the Government may, after considering the nature of the offence, make him
compulsorily retire or remove or dismiss that officer from service."
8. In this case, the charge memo no.
19/PR/06/AC(Adit)/KAP3A was issued on 25/07/2006. The Kerala
Police Act was enacted only in the year 2011. Therefore, the above
provision has no application in this matter. No doubt, the proceedings
were concluded in violation of Rule 10(a) of the KPDIP&A Rules. It is
to be noted that Rule 10(a) reiterates the principles of subjudice. It
is not a rule to prevent the conclusion of the departmental enquiry.
It only says that the final order in such proceedings shall be issued
after the disposal of the matter in the criminal court. This is an
enabling provision for a delinquent employee to invoke at an
appropriate time if he is of the view that he would be prejudiced by
criminal prosecution consequent upon the culmination of
departmental proceedings ahead of the criminal proceedings. In this
2025:KER:56806
matter, no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner consequent
upon the culmination of the department proceedings, as he had been
acquitted in the criminal case. Further, this provision can be invoked
as a matter of right only before the culmination of a criminal case, to
halt the departmental enquiry. Since the departmental enquiry has
already concluded, this provision cannot be resorted to in a routine
manner to challenge the departmental proceeding unless it is
demonstrated that serious prejudice has been caused to such
delinquent employee. Therefore, the petitioner cannot question the
outcome of the disciplinary action based on this provision.
No sustainable ground is made out by the petitioner. The
original petition therefore stands dismissed.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE
ms
2025:KER:56806
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 111/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H2/ 37607/Q DATED
15/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
KOLLAM,
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 22/12/2011IN CC
2043/2007 HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-
II, KOLLAM .
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL /REVIEW DATED 17/12/2012
PREFERRED BY THE ORIGINAL PETITIONER BEFORE THE
GOVERNMENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.09.2015
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT.) 444/2017/HOME DATED
22/02/2017
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER DATED 25/5/2018 IN
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2019 IN OP
(KAT) 310/2018
AnnexureA8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT.) NO 2343/2020/HOME DATED
14/10/2020,
Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2022 IN OA
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE 30 .03 .2022
Annexure A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT.) NO. 1197/ 2022/HOME
DATED 27.04.2022
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 12.09.2023
ISSUED BY KERALA BANK WAS PRODUCED
Annexure A13 .TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO NO.
19/PR/06/AC(ADIT)/KAP3A AND STATEMENT OF
ALLEGATIONS DATED 25.07.2006 AGAINST THE ORIGINAL
PETITIONER
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF ORIGINAL PETITIONER DATED
11.09.2006 TO CHARGE MEMO AND STATEMENT OF
ALLEGATIONS DATED 25.07.2006
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ROLL PREPARED IN THE
FILE NO H1-4225/06/KAP3 DATED 15.05.2006
Annexure A16 . TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.10.2024 IN OP
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 28.01.2025 IN OA
1841/2022 3. KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit P2 4. TRUE COPY OF OA 1841/2022 FILED BY THE ORIGINAL
2025:KER:56806
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM BENCH
Exhibit P3 5. TRUE COPY OF MA 548/2023 DATED 25.03.2023 FILED
BY THE ORIGINAL PETITIONE
Exhibit P4 6. TRUE COPY OF THE MA 1982/2023 DATED 24.10.2023
(FILED ON 25.10.2023) FILED BY THE ORIGINAL
PETITIONER/APPLICANT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A12
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MA 18/2025 DATED 02.01.2025 (FILED
ON 03.01.2025) FILED BY THE ORIGINAL PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 7. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
12.06.2023 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 23.02.2023 FILED ON
BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
