Writ petition challenging transfer orders of office attendants pending enquiry into alleged altercation. High Court dismissed petition directing completion of enquiry within two months.
Transfer orders upheld; enquiry directed to be completed within two months; remitted representations considered for transfer back if not involved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/12TH MAGHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 388 of 2016 (W)
PETITIONERS:
KURIAN JOSEPH C.J. AGED 40 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, OFFICE ATTENDANT JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III KOTTAYAM RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL HOUSE ARPOOKARA WEST P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 008
BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.SUNANDA SUKUMARAN SMT.K.R.MONISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM 686 002
2. BABY T.J
R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 390/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 388 of 2016 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO E 3468/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04-08-2012 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E 3805/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04-01-2013 |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E 60(2) 2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31-01-2013 |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO E. 7074/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-12-2015 |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT NO.III,KOTTAYAM DATED 20-02-2015 |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III,KOTTAYAM DATED 08-10-2015 |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY MR. SURESH KUMAR K TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KOTTAYAM ON 08-10-2015 |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,KOTTAYAM DATED 04-12-2015 |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATIONS UBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 21-12-2015 |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
JJJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
W.P.(C) Nos. 388 & 390 of 2016 (W)
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2016
Both the petitioners are said to have been transferred on the ground of some altercation, which happened near to the Advocates' Association, upon which, an Advocate had raised a complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The contention of both the petitioners is that the Advocate is not stable and that there is a complaint given by the staff members, as evidenced at Ext.P5 of W.P.(C) No.388/2016. This Court would not go into any such allegations especially since the said Advocate is not made a party to the proceedings.
W.P.(C) Nos.388 & 390/2016
-2-
Magistrate had directed the Office Attendants, the petitioners herein, not to visit the Bar Association without there being any official purpose for such visit. The petitioners have denied the same, but, has admitted that there was an instruction to be careful in future. In any event, there had been an altercation upon which a complaint was raised. The petitioners cannot take law into their hands merely on the ground that an Advocate is creating problems in the office of the Court.
W.P.(C) Nos.388 & 390/2016
-3-
However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall endeavour to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and if the petitioners are found to be not involved in the incident, the Chief Judicial Magistrate could also consider their representations produced along with the writ petition for transfer back to their original seats.
With the above observation, the writ petitions would stand dismissed. No Costs.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
jjj 1/2/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order transferring court staff pending completion of a criminal enquiry.
Whether the Court should impose a time limit for the investigating officer to complete the enquiry.
KURIAN JOSEPH
C.J.
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM
BABY T.J
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
