Shafeek. S vs State Of Kerala, Represented By The ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5422 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shafeek. S vs State Of Kerala, Represented By The ... on 24 March, 2025

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

O.P.(KAT)No.85 of 2025

                                   1
                                                      2025:KER:24343

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                   &

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

      MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947

                         OP(KAT) NO. 85 OF 2025

          AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 IN OA NO.486 OF 2022 OF

KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN O.A.:

              SHAFEEK. S ,
              AGED 33 YEARS
              S/O. SHAJI. H., PAVUMPAVILA KIZHAKKATHIL,
              THAMARAKULAM P.O.,THAMARAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA,
              PIN - 690530


              BY ADVS.
              D.KISHORE
              MEERA GOPINATH
              R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:

      1       STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
              GOVERNMENT,
              HOME (INTELLIGENCE-B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

      2       THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
              POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
              PIN - 695014
 O.P.(KAT)No.85 of 2025

                                  2
                                                     2025:KER:24343

      3      THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
             OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,ALAPPUZHA,
             PIN - 688001

      4      THE COMMANDANT,
             KERALA ARMED POLICE, 5TH BATTALION,KUTTIKANAM,
             IDUKKI, PIN - 685531

             BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE


      THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(KAT)No.85 of 2025

                                     3
                                                                 2025:KER:24343




                                  JUDGMENT

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

The petitioner was advised by the Kerala Public

Service Commission (PSC) for the post of Police

Constable/Civil Police Officer in the Kerala Armed

Police, 5th Battalion. However, during verification, he

disclosed that he had been implicated in three criminal

cases, which initially led to his non-appointment. He

challenged this decision before the Kerala

Administrative Tribunal, which directed the respondents

to send him for training, stipulating that he would be

permanently appointed only if he was acquitted of all

charges. During the training period, he informed the

authorities that he had been again implicated in two

additional cases, following which he was retrenched

from service.

2025:KER:24343

2. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in

all the cases. However, through Ext. A13 proceedings,

the Government debarred him from appointment in the

Civil Police Officer cadre, citing the interdiction in

Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part II of the Kerala State and

Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR). The petitioner

again approached the Tribunal, contending that none of

the alleged offences involved proclivity of violence or

moral turpitude and that all the cases were fabricated

at the behest of his neighbours. Relying on Section

86(2) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, he claimed that

he was entitled to permanent appointment and challenged

Annexure A13, seeking a direction to appoint him as a

Police Constable/Civil Police Officer.

3. The Tribunal rejected his claim, noting that the

allegations involved physical assaults using deadly

weapons. Although the cases resulted in acquittal, the

Tribunal observed that it occurred when the witnesses

turned hostile or when the petitioner settled the

2025:KER:24343

matters.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The argument of the petitioner rests on two

grounds. First, under Section 86(2) of the Kerala

Police Act, he is entitled to appointment upon

acquittal. Second, relying on the decision in Binnesh

Babu v. State of Kerala (2024 (3) KHC 364), he contends

that the appointment should not be declined if the

alleged criminal acts do not amount to violence or

moral turpitude.

6. We are unable to agree with the contentions of

the learned counsel for the petitioner. From Annexure

A13, it is obvious that the cases registered against

the petitioner are very serious in nature, and two of

them were registered even subsequent to the advice of

the Public Service Commission. All the cases occurred

during 2015-2019, whereas the petitioner was advised by

the PSC on 20.09.2017.

2025:KER:24343

7. Upon reviewing the judgments in the criminal

cases, the reply statement of the State and Annexure

A13, we note the following:

a) One case was quashed based on a settlement

between the petitioner and the victim (Crime No.

361/2015 of Nooranad Police Station), where the court

recorded that the victim had suffered a lacerated scalp

injury. As per the case of the police, the injury was

caused by the petitioner.

b) Another case was compounded out of court,

leading to acquittal under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C (Crime

No. 183/2019). According to the police, the petitioner

attacked the victim with a wooden stick.

c) In the third case (Crime No. 189/2019), the

occurrence witnesses turned hostile, and thus the

petitioner was acquitted.

d) In Crime Nos. 1311/2012 and 1317/2012 also, the

victims turned hostile, which led to the acquittal of

2025:KER:24343

the petitioner. In one of these cases, the prosecution

alleged that the petitioner, along with several other

accused persons, formed an unlawful assembly, armed

with deadly weapons such as swords and iron rods,

attacked the victim, and caused cut injuries and other

serious injuries. In the other case, it was alleged

that the petitioner stopped the victim's car by placing

a motorbike across its path and then attacked the

victim with a cricket bat.

8. All the above allegations are very serious in

nature. Thus, we are not in a position to apply the law

laid down by this Court in Binnesh Babu v. State of

Kerala (supra) in this case. The Tribunal rightly

distinguished the law stated in Binnesh Babu's case by

describing the factual differences.

9. In Union of India and Others v. Methu Mada

[(2022) 1 SCC 1], it was held that even if the

candidate is acquitted, if the reason for such a

verdict is because the witness turned hostile, that

2025:KER:24343

would not automatically entitle a candidate for

employment, especially in a disciplined force. It is

also observed that, if the offence involves moral

turpitude, then also the candidate cannot claim the

right to appointment, based on the acquittal order. The

Court further held that in such cases, the employer has

a right to reject his candidature in terms of the

statutory or other instructions.

10. Given the nature of the allegations and the

records before us, the petitioner cannot claim that the

said offences do not involve moral turpitude or

proclivity of violence. Most charges involved the use

of dangerous weapons, with two cases including an

offence under Section 308 IPC and another involving the

formation of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly

weapons. Significantly, the petitioner allegedly

engaged in criminal activities even after receiving the

PSC's advice.

11. We are also unable to accept the contentions

2025:KER:24343

based on Section 86(2) of the Police Act. Section 86(2)

does not inhibit the employer from going into the merit

of the allegations in the criminal cases against a

candidate offering employment, even if he is acquitted

of those criminal charges. It depends on the nature of

the acquittal order.

12. Further, Annexure A13 order was issued by the

Government by referring to Rule 10(b)(iii) of the

KS&SSR. It is an independent provision empowering the

Government to decide the eligibility of a candidate for

appointment on the basis of his character and

antecedents. By exercising the said authority, the

Government found that the petitioner was not suitable

for public employment. In this case, the Government

reached a conclusion that the petitioner was not

suitable for the post of Civil Police Officer based on

the report of the Additional Director General of Police

(Intelligence) as to the character and antecedents of

the petitioner. The finding is not merely because the

2025:KER:24343

petitioner had been involved in criminal cases. The

Government rightly assessed his character and

antecedents in the background of the allegations made

in the criminal cases.

13. In these circumstances, we find no reason to

interfere with the impugned order. The original

petition is dismissed.

14. Before parting with the matter, we find it

appropriate to bring one aspect to the attention of the

Government. While passing orders like Annexure A13, the

focus of the Government should be on the factual

allegations against the candidate in the criminal

cases, as well as the matters revealed through the

judgment of the trial court and the materials uncovered

in the enquiry conducted by the Intelligence Wing. The

Government must analyse the character, antecedents and

attending circumstances of the candidate, related to

the criminal case.

Though we uphold the decision taken by the

2025:KER:24343

Government (as per Annexure A13), we find that it could

have furnished more details about the materials it

considered while arriving at its conclusion, rather

than reproducing the text of the judgments of the

Constitutional Courts.

Sd/-

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE sv

2025:KER:24343

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 85/2025

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO DATED 20.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, IDUKKI TO THE APPLICANT

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 7.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT CALLING UPON THE APPLICANT FOR VERIFICATION OF CERTIFICATES AND MEDICAL EXAMINATION

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2017 IN O.A. (EKM) 2942/2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS B.O.NO.506/2018/KAP 5 DATED 23.11.2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT RETRENCHING THE APPLICANT

Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.4.2019 IN CC 625/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA

Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2020 IN SC 464/2017 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, MAVELIKKARA

Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2016 IN CRL.M.C. 6164/2016 OF THE HONORUABLE HIGH COURT

Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.4.2021 IN CC 151/2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA

2025:KER:24343

Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2020 IN CC 172/2019 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA

Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.

SSB3/220/2021/HOM DATED 20.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT

Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 8-12- 2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO ANNEXURE A11 NOTICE

Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.589/2022/HOME DATED 3.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY

Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2012 IN W.P.(C) 11777/2011 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. METHU MEDA REPORTED IN 2021 KHC 6598

Annexure R3(a)(i) TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 1311/2012 DATED 27.12.2012 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION

Annexure R3(a)(ii) TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 1317/2012 DATED 27.12.2012 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION

Annexure R3(a)(iii) TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.361/2015 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION

Annexure R3(b)(i) TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 183/2019 DATED 14.02.2019 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION

Annexure R3(b)(ii) TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 189/2019 DATED 15.02.2019 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION

Annexure R3(c) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 751/2022/CSD DATED 21.04.2022 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY

2025:KER:24343

Annexure A 16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN BINEESH BABU V STATE OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2024(3) KHC364 DATED 15.03.2024

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. 486/2022 ON THE FILE OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 18.7.2022 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 1.8.2022 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 7.6.2024 FILED BY THE APPLICANT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 IN O.A. 486/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM