Dismissed

T.a.Lukose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2019OP(KAT)/3240/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition by a retired police officer challenging an order limiting his pay and allowances during a suspension period. The Court held that because the suspension was partially justified and the delay not wholly attributable to the officer, the original tribunal's decision to limit pay was legal.

What did the court decide?

The original petition (Op. KAT No. 3240 of 2012) was dismissed with no costs awarded.

T.a.Lukose Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No. 3240 of 2012

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21-06-2012 IN T.A.NO.201/2012 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

¶10

T.A.LUKOSE,

¶11

(RETIRED DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME RECORDS BUREAU, WAYANAD), THADATHIL HOUSE, VRINDAVAN COLONY, CHEVAYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE – 17.

¶12

BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶16

BY SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVT.PLEADER

¶17

THIS OP(KAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2019, THE COURT ON 13.06.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(KAT)No.3240 of 2012

Judgment

Chitambaresh, J.

1.The period of suspension of the petitioner from 1.11.1997 to

¶23

18.6.1999 was regularised as duty by the first respondent by Ext.P7 order however limiting the pay and allowances to subsistence allowance drawn. The remaining period till the petitioner reported for duty was regularised as joining time and/or in terms of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short). Ext.P7 order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) and hence the petitioner is before us in this original petition.

¶24

2.Rule 56B(3) of Part I KSR reads as follows:

¶25

“(3) Where the Authority Competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the officer shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended:

¶26

Provided that where such authority is of the

¶27

OP(KAT)No.3240 of 2012

¶28

¶29

opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the officer had been delayed owing to reasons directly attributable to the officer, it may after giving him an opportunity to make his representation and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the officer shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine.”

¶30

There is no finding in Ext.P7 order by the Government that 'the suspension was wholly unjustified' in which case only need the petitioner be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled.

¶31

3.Ext.P1 order of suspension on the other hand revealed that it was justified in the circumstances in view of the alleged nexus of the petitioner with one Sreedevi who was conducting a beauty parlour. The allegation on the basis of the various inputs by the police was that Sreedevi was conducting a brothel under the cover of the beauty parlour and supplying women to the wealthy. Ext.P1 order of suspension was passed on the basis of the report of the

¶32

OP(KAT)No.3240 of 2012

¶33

¶34

Director General of Police and the preliminary enquiry report of the Inspector General of Police (NZ). Ext.P1 order explicitly states that the petitioner has behaved in a manner which is not expected from responsible senior officers which carried bad name to the police force.

¶35

4.The mere fact that the petitioner was exonerated from the charges by Ext.P5 order after considering Ext.P4 statement of defence filed to Ext.P3 memo of charges will not be of any avail to claim full pay and allowances. The Government by Ext.P5 order has only accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer who has opined that there is 'no legal and reliable evidence in support of the charges'. The available evidence in other words falls short of the requisite degree to support the charges levelled against the petitioner though cannot be brushed aside as wholly irrelevant. The further fact that the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in Crime No.282/1997 of Nadakkavu Police Station registered in this regard also does not advance his case.

¶36

OP(KAT)No.3240 of 2012

¶37

¶38

5.All relevant facts and circumstances have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal in holding that Ext.P7 order limiting the pay and allowances of the petitioner to the subsistence allowance is justified. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the witnesses refuted their earlier statements recorded during the investigation of the crime was adverted to by the Tribunal. The discretion vested in the Government in limiting the pay and allowances of the petitioner during the period of suspension was rightly not interfered with by the Tribunal. We do not think that Ext.P1 order impugned in this original petition suffers from any infirmity in law warranting interference at our hands in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction.

¶39

The original petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶42

Sd/ASHOK MENON, JUDGE

¶43

Sha/110619

¶44

OP(KAT)No.3240 of 2012

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.6.2012 IN T.A.NO.201/2012 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BENCH.

¶49

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE W.P.(C)NO.20542/2004

¶50

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.4698/97/HOME DATED 23.10.1997

¶51

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.3252/99/HOME DATED 19.6.1999

¶52

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO.H1-12021/98 W DATED 20.11.1999 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD

¶53

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD DATED 21.11.2001.

¶54

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.2197/2003/HOME DATED 13.11.2003.

¶55

EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.12.2003 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.

¶56

EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (RT)NO.273/2004/HOME DATED 29.1.2004.

¶57

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN WP(C)NO.20542/2004.

¶58

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

T.a.Lukose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.a.Lukose v. State of Kerala

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

Superintendent Vs Vijayakumar K

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Babitha Merin John

Sudhakaran Erumbala, Vs Additional Divisional Railway Manager

State of Kerala Vs Omana.D

Devajith Vs State of Kerala

Union of India Vs P.K.Sajilakumari