Sajeev Kumar vs State Of Kerala

P. Krishna Kumar, J.

A person suspected of being an accused in a serious crime was entrusted to the petitioner, a police constable, by his superior officer for safekeeping until the victim arrived at the police station and identified him. With the petitioner's permission, the suspect left for a nearby railway station to drop off a relative but failed to return within the expected time. The petitioner immediately informed this to his superior officer, but the higher officials apprehended that the petitioner had helped the suspect escape, and suspended him, ordering a disciplinary enquiry. Meanwhile, the suspect returned to the police station within two and a half hours, and the victim, who arrived subsequently, positively identified him.

The disciplinary proceedings culminated in the imposition of a major punishment: withholding of annual increments for 2 years with cumulative effect. As the statutory appeal preferred against the said finding was unsuccessful, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, where also he faced defeat, leading him to resort to the present petition.

The petitioner argued that he had no alternative but to grant permission for the suspect to leave the police station, as the suspect had not been formally arrested and this was done with due intimation to his senior officer, but all issues arose when the suspect's mobile phone went off. As the suspect returned before the victim arrived, there was no actionable misconduct on his part, the petitioner argued.

This Court normally refrains from interfering with the factual findings of disciplinary authorities or the Tribunal, while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in this case, we observed that the appellate authority, while passing the Annexure A11 order, failed to consider any of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the Annexure A10 appeal. The appeal was disposed of without addressing any of the contentions raised and without providing reasons for the finding, beyond merely reproducing the disciplinary authority's version. This oversight is unexpected from a statutory appellate authority. Regrettably, the learned Tribunal also omitted to address this aspect in its order.

In these circumstances, instead of remitting back the matter to the appellate authority, we are constrained to re-examine the petitioner's grievances, albeit in a limited scope, against the findings of the disciplinary authority, given the time elapsed.

After evaluating the entire factual and legal context, we concur with the Tribunal's observation that every member of a disciplined force, like the police, is expected to act vigilantly, and any lapse should be viewed seriously. Nevertheless, we find that justice will be served if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is reduced to withholding of annual increments for 2 years without cumulative effect.

The original petition is disposed of accordingly.