Partly allowed

Krishnakumar.K v. Union of India

Kerala HC12 Mar 2018WP(C)/7769/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by an RPF constable challenging his transfer due to alleged criminal charges. Court directed respondents to allow the petitioner to report to the Investigating Officer per bail conditions and directed the second respondent to consider his representation within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to allow petitioner to report to Investigating Officer as per bail conditions; directed 2nd respondent to act within three weeks.

Krishnakumar.K Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 7769 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KRISHNAKUMAR.K., AGED 48, S/O.K.KRISHNAN NAIR, WORKING AS CONSTABLE (SR9601272), RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 021, (RESIDING AT SREYAS, TC79/1374(4), KARIKKAKOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 021.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶12

2. THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER,

¶13

RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,

¶14

CHENNAI-600 003.

¶15

3. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 014.

¶16

4. THE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 021.

¶17

R1 TO R4 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH,ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.S.PRASHANTH, SC, SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC,

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts 13/3/2018

¶20

WP(C).No. 7769 of 2018 (U)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF ORDER NO.KCVL/04/SM/2018 DATED 24/2/2018 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF ACCIDENT CUM WOUND CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF INJURIES CAUSED TO THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28/2/2018 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts 13/3/2018

P.V.ASHA J.

W.P.(C).No.7769 of 2018

¶30

----------------------------------- Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2018

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner, who is working as a Constable under the Railway Protection Force has filed this writ petition challenging his transfer ordered as per Ext.P1 by which he has been transferred from Kochuveli to Palakkad.

¶33

According to him, the reason for transfer is that he is involved in a crime registered under Sections 341, 323, 354 D(i), 354 and 506 (i) of IPC. The Magistrate has granted bail as per order dated 08.01.2018 on certain conditions. One of the conditions is that he shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9:00 am and 1:00 pm on

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C).No.7769 of 2018

¶36

all Saturdays for a period of three months or till the filing of final report, whichever is earlier.

¶37

The learned Standing Counsel for Railway submit that petitioner had already joined Palakkad on 07.03.2018 itself. This Court had passed an interim order on 07.03.2018 directing that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the same station, as the learned Standing Counsel sought time to get instructions.

¶38

Now, that petitioner has already joined Palakkad pursuant to Ext.P1 order, there shall be a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to report before the Investigating Officer in tune with the conditions fixed in the order dated 08.01.2018 in CMP. No.36/2018 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, there shall be

¶40

W.P.(C).No.7769 of 2018

¶41

¶42

a direction to 2^nd respondent to consider the same and

¶43

pass orders thereon within a period of 'three weeks'

¶44

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶47

Krishnakumar.K v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnakumar.K v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheeja K. Vs a.Shajahan

Roopkumar G Vs the Director General

Joseph Froid Peraira Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Jeslin S. Chungath Vs State Bank of India

Dr.K.a.Retheesh Vs State of Kerala

Kumari Girija.v Vs State of Kerala