Kerala High Court
Xxxxxx vs The Union Of India on 24 December, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 / 3RD POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
P.V.JEEVESH
C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN (CHALIL)
C.R.NEELAKANDAN NAMBOODIRI
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)(R-245)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE CABINET SECRETARY, CABINET
SECRETARIAT, SOUTH BLOCK, RASHTRAPATI BHAVAN, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110004
2 STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE CHIEF SECRETARY
STATE OF KERALA, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE HOME SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, KERALA STATE, GROUND FLOOR, MAIN
BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 695010
5 M.J. SOJAN
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
2
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O M.D. JOSE, MECHERY HOUSE, ELINJIPRA P.O,
CHALAKUDI, THRISSUR- 680721, PRESENTLY WORKING AS
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH,
CENTRAL UNIT -2, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
BY ADVS.
THOMAS J ANAKKALLUNKAL .
RAJIT
ARUN CHANDRAN(K/000575/2008)
ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH(K/427/2007)
JAYARAMAN S.(K/1244/2019)
DHANYA SUNNY(K/239/2024)
ANN MILKA GEORGE(K/1014/2024)
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)(K/000570/1979)
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI. AJITH VISWANATH
SR ADV SRI RAMKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.12.2024 THE COURT ON 24.12.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
3
" C.R"
C.S.DIAS,J.
====================
W.P(C)No.31104 of 2024
------------------------------------ --
Dated this the 24th day of December, 2024
JUDGMENT
In 2017, the petitioner’s two minor daughters died
under suspicious circumstances. Though a criminal case was
registered, the investigation was flawed. A few persons were
arraigned as accused in the crime for committing the offences
under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
(POCSO Act) the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and offences under the Indian Penal
Code. However, the accused were acquitted in the crime. In an
appeal filed against the order of acquittal, this Court found serious
illegalities in the investigation and trial and consequentially
ordered a re-trial. During the re-trial, the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) took over the investigation. Without
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
4
conducting a proper investigation, the CBI filed a perfunctory
charge sheet. The Trial Court refused to accept the charge sheet
and ordered further investigation. The subsequent events that
transpired have led to the conclusion of the murder of the
petitioner’s daughters. Now, the CBI is conducting the
investigation into the homicidal angle. The 5th respondent was the
first Investigating Officer. The petitioner challenges the Integrity
Certificate issued to the 5th respondent for conferring him with the
Indian Police Service (IPS). The 5th respondent is presently holding
the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS cadre) in the State
Police. Several criminal prosecutions are pending against him. The
5th respondent has made obnoxious remarks against the petitioner
and her deceased daughters through the visual medium to insult
and humiliate them. The petitioner has initiated criminal
prosecution against the 5th respondent for committing the offence
under Section 23(1) of the POCSO Act. The 5 th respondent’s
application for conferment of IPS is under consideration by the 1 st
respondent, for which purpose an integrity certificate is required
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
5
from the 2 respondent. Although the 2nd respondent was initially
nd
reluctant to grant the integrity certificate, the same was issued
under the cover of Ext.P2 judgment passed by this Court. The 2 nd
respondent has suppressed the material facts regarding the
pendency of criminal prosecution against the 5 th respondent. By
Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had directed the 2nd respondent to
consider the petitioner’s representations. As the Authorities have
flouted the directions in the judgment, the petitioner had filed
Contempt Case (C) No. 1778 of 2024 before this Court. Then, the
2nd respondent submitted that an integrity certificate was issued.
Nevertheless, as the directions in Ext.P3 judgment were violated,
this Court directed the 2nd respondent to comply with the directions.
Consequentially, the 4th respondent has superficially considered the
matter and rejected the petitioner’s grievance by impugned Ext.P4
order. Ext.P4 order is unjustifiable, capricious, arbitrary, and liable
to be quashed. Ext.P4 evidences a total non-application of mind.
The petitioner has highlighted the misconduct and unfairness
committed by the 5th respondent in several complaints. A Division
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
6
Bench of this Court has observed that the investigation conducted
in connection with the death of the petitioner’s daughters shocked
its conscience. There is no provision in the Indian Police Services
Rules or the related rules that permits the Government to
favourably consider the request of an accused police officer. An
officer to be recruited to the service has to be a person of high
integrity, dignity and honesty, which the 5th respondent lacks. The
Government is bound to consider the petitioner’s grievances, and
she ought to have been heard before issuing Ext.P4 certificate.
Therefore, Ext.P4 is to be declared illegal and is to be set aside.
2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit
contending that the writ petition is not maintainable in law because
the petitioner has no personal grievance to be redressed, especially
because Ext.P4 concerns the 5th respondent’s service as a police
personnel. There is no public interest involved in the matter. The
petitioner is not a qualified person or an aspirant for the post of
IPS. It is trite; in service matters, only non-appointees can assail
the legality of the appointment/selection. The petitioner is a
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
7
meddlesome interloper with vested interests. The writ petition is
an experimental exercise to satisfy the petitioner’s vendetta. The
petitioner has not explained in what manner she is aggrieved by
Ext.P4 order. The contention that the 5th respondent is facing
criminal prosecution is incorrect. The 5 threspondent is an accused
only in C.C.No.1441/2003 on the file of the Judicial First-Class
Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, for allegedly committing the
offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The
prosecution allegation in the said case is that, on 1.9.2001, while
the 5th respondent was on law-and-order duty, he caned a person
named Narayanan Nair to death. Actually, the person died due to
myocardial infarction. Subsequently, the deceased’s brother filed a
private complaint against the 5th respondent. The jurisdictional
Magistrate dismissed the complaint. In appeal, the matter was
remitted back to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Nonetheless, this
Court has quashed the entire proceedings by Ext.R5(a) order.
Notwithstanding the de facto complainant challenging the order
before the Honourable Supreme Court, the special leave petition
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
8
was dismissed by Ext.R5(b) order. Similarly, the allegation
against the 5th respondent in S.C.No.551/2022 on the file of the
Special Court (POCSO), Palakkad, is that he made derogative
remarks against the petitioner and her children. It was two years
after the alleged telecast that the petitioner had filed a private
complaint. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence as per
Ext.R5(c) order. However, the order was quashed by this Court as
per Ext.R5 (d) order. The 5th respondent has 29 years of
unblemished service and has secured more than 70 good service
entries. He was honoured with the ‘Badge of Honour’ by the State
Police Chief for his exceptional skills and detective excellence.
This Court has appreciated the investigation conducted by the 5 th
respondent in connection with the death of the petitioner’s
daughters. The Integrity Certificate issued by the 2 nd respondent
has been forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission
(UPSC) as per the directions of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. It
was after thoroughly considering all the relevant aspects that the 2 nd
respondent has, in its wisdom, issued and forwarded the integrity
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
9
certificate to the UPSC. Now, it is within the dominion of the
UPSC to act upon the Integrity Certificate. Even though the
petitioner is not entitled to be heard in the matter, it is honouring
the directions in Ext.P3 judgment that the 2nd respondent heard the
petitioner. The entire selection process for the conferment of IPS
on the 5th respondent was completed on 5.8.2024. In an identical
matter, this Court has passed Ext.R5(f) judgment and dismissed the
writ petition. This writ petition is only liable to be dismissed.
3. Heard; Sri. K. Ramkumar, the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner, Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, and Sri.Ajith
Viswanathan, the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued
that it was the 5th respondent who investigated Crime No.43/2017
of the Walayar Police Station, registered in connection with the
death of the petitioner’s daughters. Due to the slipshod
investigation, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons. In the
appeal against the orders of acquittal, the Division Bench of this
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
10
Court, in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Madhu @
Kutti Madhu (2021 (1) KHC 351), has deprecated the faulty
investigation and has passed strictures against the Investigating
Officer’s honesty, integrity and capability. The 5th respondent has
played a pivotal role in the shabby investigation. The petitioner is
the distraught mother of two murdered children. She has the right
to bring to the notice of respondents 1 to 4 regarding the dishonest
character and lack of integrity of the 5th respondent and that he is
not entitled to the Integrity certificate. It is uncharitable for the 5 th
respondent to allege in his counter affidavit that the petitioner is a
meddlesome interloper. This imputation by itself demonstrates the
character of the 5th respondent. The petitioner has the locus standi
to challenge Ext.P4 order. Moreover, in Ext.P2 judgment, another
Division Bench of this Court has directed the State Government’s
competent authority to decide on the 5 th respondent’s application
for an Integrity certificate strictly in accordance with the norms
issued by the Union Government. Subsequently, by Ext.P3
judgment, a learned single Judge of this Court has directed the
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
11
State Government to consider the petitioner’s representations and
afford her an opportunity to be heard before deciding on the 5 th
respondent’s request for an Integrity certificate. Mysteriously, the
2nd respondent has not considered the petitioner’s representations in
its proper perspective. Instead, the 2 nd respondent passed Ext.P4
arbitrary and illegal order without considering the petitioner’s
contentions and flouted the directions of this Court. The 2 nd
respondent has failed to consider the parameters in Regulation 5 of
the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion)
Regulations, 1955. In addition to the strictures passed by the
Division Bench in Madhu @ Kutti Madhu‘s case, the 5 th
respondent, while working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, had
brutally caned an innocent man to death. The de facto complainant
is still pursuing the case. The 5th respondent has also made
derogatory remarks in the visual media against the petitioner and
her deceased daughters. A crime was registered in connection with
the incident, and the matter is now pending before this Court. The
learned Senior Counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
12
Govindakutty v. State of Kerala (2000 KHC 29) and Tessy
Jimmy v. State of Kerala (2024 (4) KHC 160), and the decisions
of the House of Lords in Nottinghamshire County Council v.
Secretary of State for Environment and another (1986 (1)
All.E.R 199) and Council of Civil Service Unions and others v.
Minister for Civil Service (1984 (3) ALL.E.R 935) to canvass the
position that administrative action is subject to control by judicial
review if it is (i) illegal (ii) irrational and (iii) there is procedural
impropriety. He also placed reliance on the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra and
others v. Prabhu (1994 KHC 1141) and a decision of this Court in
Devassy v. State of Kerala (1994 KHC 403) to reinforce his
contention that the equity jurisdiction of this Court is to be
exercised in the interest of justice and to maintain the rule of law.
The bar under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, that only a person seeking or holding a post has the locus
standi to approach the Tribunal is not applicable to a writ petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He urged that
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
13
the writ petition be allowed by setting aside Ext.P4 order.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the 5 th respondent
countered the above submissions. He argued that the petitioner has
no locus standi to seek a writ of mandamus to withhold the
conferment of IPS to the 5th respondent, which is the prerogative of
the State and is well-defined by the Indian Police Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. He drew the
attention of this Court to Ext.R5 (e) notification to substantiate that
the UPSC has approved the 5th respondent’s name in the select
lists of 2021 and 2022 for promotion to the IPS cadre. He
contended that the 5th respondent was not the Investigating Officer
in the crime registered in connection with the death of the
petitioner’s daughters. The 5th respondent was the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, whom the Division Bench has
complemented in paragraph 103 of the decision in Madhu @
Kutti Madhu‘s case (supra). Similarly, by Ext.R5 (d) order, the
proceedings in S.C.No.551/2022 before the Special Court were
quashed by this Court. The only criminal prosecution that the 5 th
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
14
respondent faced was C.C.No.1441/2003 for committing an
offence under Section 324 of the IPC, on the allegation that the 5 th
respondent had caned a person named Narayanan Nair, and he died
on the following day. The person died due to a myocardial
infarction. It was two years after the incident that the deceased’s
brother filed a private complaint alleging that the 5 th respondent
had caused his death. But, by Ext.R5 (a) order, this Court has
quashed the proceedings, which order has been confirmed by the
Honourable Supreme Court by Ext.R5 (b) order. So, as of today,
there is no criminal prosecution against the 5 th respondent. The 2nd
respondent has issued an Integrity Certificate in its wisdom,
pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
Court, that too after thoroughly considering all aspects. It is within
the domain of the 1st respondent and the UPSC to act upon the
Integrity Certificate. Though the petitioner has no entitlement to
raise her voice in the matter, it was honouring the directions in
Ext.P3 judgment of this Court; the 2nd respondent heard the
petitioner and has passed Ext.P4 order. The entire selection process
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
15
th
is completed, and the 5 respondent’s name is included in the
Ext.R5 (e) select list. By Ext.R5(f) judgment, this Court has
dismissed a writ petition of an identical nature. Therefore, the writ
petition may be dismissed.
6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the 2nd
respondent considered the 5th respondent’s request as per the
directions passed in Ext.P2 judgment, Indian Police Service
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and the Norms laid
down by the Ministry of Home Affairs letter No.17/2/70-AIS (III)
dated 26.05.1970. Along with the 5 th respondent’s request, the
petitioner’s representations were also considered as directed by this
Court in Ext.P3 judgment. Ext.P4 order is well-considered and is
passed strictly in conformity with the Regulations and Norms that
are in vogue. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the Ext.P4
order. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
7. The 5th respondent had entered the State Police service
as a Sub-Inspector of Police. He was eventually promoted to
Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS) and was found eligible for
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
16
promotion to the IPS cadre by the State Government as per the
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,
1955 (‘Regulations’, for brevity). However, the 2nd respondent
withheld his Integrity Certificate on the ground that a criminal case
is pending against him.
8. The 5th respondent filed O.A.No.80/2023 (‘O.A’)
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench
(‘Tribunal’), to direct the second respondent to issue the Integrity
Certificate in his favour. He also sought a similar interim relief in
the O.A. But the Tribunal ordered that the interim relief would be
considered with the O.A.
9. Aggrieved by the order, the 5th respondent filed O.P.
(CAT) No.113 of 2023 before this Court. By Ext.P2 judgment, the
Division Bench of this Court allowed the O.A, and made the
following observations:
“10. On a prima facie assessment of the pleadings and materials on
record, that is discernible from Ext.P-6 reply statement, more particularly
para No.6 thereof, it indicates that a stand has been taken therein that the
respondent State Government cannot issue any integrity certificate in fa-
vour of the original applicant, in view of the pendency of the aforesaid
criminal case. The said stand taken by the State Government, in para
No.6 of Ext.P-6 reply statement, does not appear to be in consonance
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
17
with the norms in para No.2 of the norms issued by the Government of
India on 26.5.1970. The norms in that regard are very clear, that, if
such adverse proceedings are pending, then the integrity certificate
should not ipso facto be withheld and it is the obligation of the State
Government to exercise its discretion to examine each case with refer-
ence to the nature and gravity of the charges, the evidence available on
the basis of the investigation made upto that time, the known argu-
ments of the defence, if any, the views of the Head of the Department,
general reputation of the officer, etc. and decide whether they would
like to include him in the list of officers, whose integrity is certified or
in the list of those in respect of whom the integrity certificate is with-
held. Such exercise does not appear to have been done by the respond-
ent State Government.
11. The interim relief sought for by the applicant is for a direction
to the respondent State Government to issue the integrity certificate. Such
an interim order cannot be granted at this stage of the case now. However,
in view of the abovesaid prima facie finding, we are of the view that the re-
spondent State Government is bound to reconsider their stand, referred to
in para No.6 of the reply statement. The approach therein, that the respond-
ent State Government cannot issue the integrity certificate at all in view of
the mere pendency of the above criminal case, does not appear to be in
consonance with the abovesaid Government of India norms. Further, we
are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal
should have considered the interim plea of the petitioner. As, according to
the petitioner, the selection committee for 2021 could be convened at any
time and if the integrity certificate is withheld for the reasons stated by the
respondent State Government, then the fundamental right of the petitioner
to be considered for promotion, in consonance with the norms and
guidelines governing the field, will be detrimentally affected, etc. Accord-
ingly, it is ordered that the respondent State Government will reconsider
the stand and should abide by the parameters and criteria laid down in para
No.2 of the abovesaid norms issued by the Union Government on
26.5.1970 and should exercise its discretion and examine the involvement
of the petitioner in the above criminal case, with reference to the nature
and gravity of the factual charges alleged therein, the evidence available
from the materials on record, the known arguments of the defence, if any,
the views of the Head of the Department, the general reputation of the of-
ficer, etc. and then decide whether they would include him in the list of of-
ficers whose integrity is certified or in the list of those in respect of whom
the integrity certificate is withheld. Such decision shall be taken by the
State Government, as early as possible, without any further delay. It is also
made clear that the 2nd respondent UPSC will also be at liberty to seek for
any clarifications and orders of the Tribunal, if the selection committee is
to be convened before orders are passed by the Tribunal, if they find it ne-
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
18
cessary. Further, in the light of the abovesaid submission made by the re-
spondent UPSC, the case of the petitioner for promotion to IPS may be
considered in the light of the provisions contained in the IPS Promotion
Regulations, more particularly Regulation 5(5) thereof. 12. In that regard,
the plea of the petitioner that even the offence as per Sec. 324 of the I.P.C.
is not made out, and at best only the offence as per Sec. 323 may be made
out and that the impugned criminal proceedings are illegal and ultra vires,
on the ground that the sanction for prosecution under Sec. 197 of the
Cr.P.C. has been granted by the District Collector, who is an incompetent
authority and not by the competent appointing authority, etc. should be
considered. Further, the case of the petitioner that he has consistently been
promoted to all the higher posts upto the post of Superintendent of Police
(non-IPS), and he has an extremely good service record and that no other
criminal proceedings are pending against him, except the above incidents,
which occurred 22 years ago, should all be taken into account. The report
of the 4th respondent Director General of Police/State Police Chief, who is
the Head of the Police Department and the general reputation of the officer
should all be taken into account. The fact that the petitioner is now aged 54
years and the integrity certificate has been withheld in the previous selec-
tion years, 2019 and 2020, etc. without stating reasons, which has preju-
diced the petitioner, the fact that the alleged incident took place more than
22 years after which the respondent state authorities have consistently
found him fit and meritorous for various higher promotions, the plea of the
petitioner that the trial has been deferred due to the orders in the pending
W.P.(C)., etc. and all other aspects based on the respondent Union Govern-
ment’s afore norms should be considered and taken into account. Both
sides have not brought to the notice of this Court, any norms on the above
issue other than the norms referred to above. It has to be borne in mind that
mechanical withholding of the issuance of integrity certificate, in the facts
and circumstances of this case, would be unjust and illegal”.
10. During this period, the petitioner had filed W.P(C) No
29196//2023 before this Court to direct the 2nd respondent to
consider her representations. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court
disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents 1 to 3 in
the writ petition to dispose of the petitioner’s representations.
11. Pursuant to the directions in Exts.P2 and P3
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
19
th
judgments, the 4 respondent passed Ext.P4 order, which reads as
follows:
“13. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide
reference cited 2nd above, Government reconsidered the entire issue and
certified the integrity certificate to Sri. M J Sojan.
14. Based on the order of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide
reference cited 1st above, the hearing has been conducted on 26.07.2024.
Smt. Bhagyavathy has turned up for hearing and submitted argument note
vide reference cited 4th above. Sri. M.J. Sojan has also submitted argument
note vide reference cited 5th above. State Police Chief has furnished a
report vide reference cited 6th above in connection with the hearing on
26.07.2024. Based on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala,
Government has reexamined the entire issue in detail considering the
report of State Police Chief and the argument note filed by Smt. V.
Bhagyavathy and Sri. M.J. Sojan. On detailed examination it is seen that:
a) When Government granted the integrity
certificate to Sri.M.J. Sojan based on the order of Hon.High Court, vide
reference cited 2nd above. Government had taken into account the
Walayar case also.
b) The Integrity Certificate was issued after
assessing the work and conduct of the officer in the Police Department as
insisted under Indian Police Service (Appointment by promotion)
Regulations 1955 and the private complaints has no role in granting the
integrity certificate.
c) Smt. V. Bhagyavathy filed SC.551/2022 of Addl.
District and Sessions Court, Palakkad requesting action against Sri. M.J.
Sojan and demanding compensation from him for making obnoxious
remarks against the victim minor children before media. Sri. M.J Sojan had
obtained interim orders from Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in his favour in
Crl Appl No. 1/2022 in Crl MC 4268/2022 staying further proceedings in
this case ie. this issue is already under the consideration of Hon.Court.
d) State Police Chief has reported that the general
reputation of the officer is found good and he is known to be honest,
hardworking, and work knowing.
e) Earlier the Integrity certificate of Sri. M.J. Sojan
was withheld. It was reviewed based only on the order of Division bench of
Hon.High Court vide reference cited 2nd above.
f) The reliability of voice clip submitted Smt.
Bhagyavathy is yet to be proved.
15. When this case examined it is seen that the integrity certificate of
Sri. M.J. Sojan is granted based on his work and conduct in Police
Department. In view of the order of Hon. High court in (OP(KAT) filed by
Sri. M.J. Sojan) Government obtained revised report from State Police
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
20
Chief, advice from Advocate General and reexamined the matter as per the
norms in para 2 of regulations issued by Ministry of Home Affairs as per
Letter No. 17/03/70-AIS (III) dated 26-05-1970 and granted Integrity
Certificate to Sri MJ Sojan. It is seen that Sri M J Sojan was not charge
sheeted in the case SC.551/2022 of Addl. District and Sessions Court,
Palakkad filed by Smt. V Bhagyavathy and Hon’ble High court has stayed
the case in favour of Sri. M.J Sojan. Moreover Smt. V Bhagyavathy has not
produced any substantial evidence at the time of hearing to revoke the
integrity certificate issued to Sri M J Sojan. Hence based on the request of
Smt. V.Bhagyavathy the integrity Certificate already granted to Sri. M.J.
Sojan. for IPS promotion for the vacancies in the year 2021 and 2022 need
not be revisited.
16. In the above circumstances the request of Smt. V. Bhagyavathy
vide reference cited 3rd above to withheld the Integrity Certificate granted
to Sri. M.J. Sojan for IPS promotion for the vacancies in the year 2021 and
2022 is hereby declined”.
12. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, this writ petition is filed.
13. The three incidents alleged by the petitioner, which
disentitle the 5th respondent to an Integrity Certificate, are: (i) the
Division Bench has deprecated the lackadaisical investigation
conducted by the 5th respondent in the crime registered in
connection with the death of the petitioner’s daughters (ii) the 5 th
respondent had brutally tortured one Narayanan Nair and murdered
him and (iii) the 5th respondent has made derogative statements in
the visual media against the petitioner and her two daughters and
humiliated them.
14. As observed, the 5th respondent was not the Investigating
Officer in Crime No. 43/2017 of the Walayar Police Station.
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
21
Instead, he was the Deputy Superintendent of Police. No strictures
were passed against the 5th respondent. In paragraph 103 of the
decision in Madhu @Kutti Madhu‘s case (supra), the Division
Bench has observed as follows:
“Despite a reasonably good job done by the Dy.S.P., the
Investigating Officer, who was deputed to investigate these cases almost a
week after the younger girl’s death, he could not gather any proper
scientific evidence”.
15. It is undisputed that by Ext.R5(a) order, this Court has
quashed the proceedings filed by the brother of late Narayanan for
want of sanction. Even though permission was sought to
prosecute the 5th respondent, the same was declined and was
confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C)No. 6502/2019. As matters
stand now, the judgment has attained finality.
16. Lastly, by Ext.R5(d) order, this Court has quashed the
order of the Special Court, taking cognizance of the offence under
the POSCO Act against the petitioner for allegedly making
derogative statements against the petitioner and her daughters.
Nonetheless, the order passed by the Special Court declining to
take cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
22
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act,1989, is challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1166/2023 and is pending consideration.
17. It is the 5th respondent’s case that he has not made any
derogative statements. He also disputed his voice and contended
that there were no visuals, time, stamps, or descriptions of the
location from where the statements were made.
18. The 4th respondent, after considering the rival pleading
and submissions, by Ext.P4 order, has held that the reliability of
the voice clip submitted by the petitioner is not proved, and there
is no substantial evidence to revoke the Integrity Certificate.
19. In the above background, it is germane to refer to the
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,
1955, which reads thus:
” Regulation 5. Preparation of a list of Suitable officers;-
(1)……………..
…. …. ….
(5) The list shall be prepared by including the required number of
names, first from amongst the officers finally classified as
‘Outstanding’ then from amongst those similarly classified as
‘Very Good’ and thereafter from amongst those similarly
classified as ‘Good’ and the order of names inter-se within each
category shall be in the order of their seniority in the State Police
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 202423
Service.
Provided that the name of an officer so included in
the list, shall be treated as provisional, if the State
Government, withholds the integrity certificate in respect of
such an officer or any proceedings, departmental or criminal,
are pending against him or anything adverse against him
which renders him unsuitable for appointment to the service
has come to the notice of the State Government.
Provided further that while preparing year-wise select
lists for more than one year pursuant to the second proviso to sub-
regulation (1), the officer included provisionally in any of the
select list so prepared, shall be considered for inclusion in the
select list of subsequent year in addition to the normal
consideration zone and in case he is found fit for inclusion in the
suitability list for that year on a provisional basis, such inclusion
shall be in additional to the normal size of the select list
determined by the Central Government for such year.
Explanation I: The proceedings shall be treated as pending
only if a charge-sheet has actually been issued to the officer or
filed in a Court, as the case may be.
Explanation II: The adverse thing which came to the notice of the
State Government rendering him unsuitable for appointment to the
Service shall be treated as having come to the notice of the State
only if the details of the same have been communicated to the
Central Government and the Central Government is satisfied that
the details furnished by the State Government have a bearing on
the suitability of the officer and investigation thereof is essential.”
20. The norms promulgated by the Ministry of
Home Affairs No.17/02/70- AIS reads as follows:
“2. As regards the officers against whom inquiries are
pending, the integrity certificate should not ipso facto be withheld.
The State Government should examine each case with reference to
the nature/gravity of the charges, the evidence available on the basis
of the investigation made upto that time, the known arguments of
defence, if any, the views of the Head of Department, the general
reputation of the officer etc, and then decide whether they would like
to include him in the list of officers whose integrity is certified or in
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 202424
the list of those in respect of whom the integrity certificate is
withheld.”
21. As per the above Regulation and the norms, the name
of an officer to be included in the list shall be treated as
provisional, if the State Government withholds the Integrity
Certificate, if any proceedings (departmental or criminal) are
pending against the officer or if there is anything adverse to
him which renders him unsuitable for the appointment to
service. Explanation I of the above Regulation states that the
proceedings shall be treated as pending only if a charge sheet
is issued to the officer or is filed in a court. Likewise, the
Norms stipulate that the Integrity Certificate shall not be
withheld merely because an inquiry is pending. Instead, the
State Government has to examine each case with reference to
the nature and gravity of the charges and the evidence
available on the basis of the investigation.
22. In the present case, in addition to the findings and the
directions of the Division Bench in Ext.P2 judgment, which has
attained finality, as of today, there is no charge sheet pending
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
25
th
against the 5 respondent. Moreover, the 4th respondent has
doubted the reliability of the voice clip submitted by the petitioner
and held that the petitioner had not submitted any substantial
evidence to revoke the Integrity Certificate. It is based on the
above findings that the 4th respondent, in its wisdom, has
concluded that the 5th respondent is entitled to an Integrity
Certificate.
23. In M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC [(2008) 2 SCC 119],
the Honourable Supreme Court, while considering the scope of
judicial review in a matter relating to the conferment of IAS, has
held as under:
“21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the
candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee
cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious
violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an appellate
authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like
the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection
Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the
selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each
candidate and record its opinion. …
24. The above same view has been reiterated by the
Honourable Supreme Court in UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya
[(2018) 15 SCC 796] by observing thus:
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 202426
“17. The Selection Committee consists of experts in the field. It is
presided over by the Chairman or a Member of UPSC and is duly
represented by the officers of the Central Government and the State
Government who have expertise in the matter. In our considered opinion,
when a High-Level Committee or an expert body has considered the
merit of each of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered
their cases for promotion, it is not open to CAT and the High Court to
sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an
appellate authority. The question as to how the categories are assessed
in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making
the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection
Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is
vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee
members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts
generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the
process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala
fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the
matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the
Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the
candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a
particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert
body i.e. the Selection Committee. The courts have very limited scope
of judicial review in such matters.
(emphasis given)
25. The core of the argument of the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner in attacking Ext.P4 order is that the
order is arbitrary, hit by the Wednesbury principles of
reasonableness, the order is an abuse of process of power, and the
decision is rendered without following the due procedure of law.
26. On a careful consideration of the facts, the materials
on record, the observations of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment and
the reasoning in Ext.P4 order, this Court does not find any ground
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
27
or material to hold that Ext.P4 order or the decision-making
process is actuated with malice or malafides. The 4 th respondent
in its wisdom, after considering the matter in detail, has decided to
issue the Integrity Certificate to the 5th respondent. This Court
finds no illegality or arbitrariness in Ext.P4 order warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
writ petition is devoid of any merits and is only to be dismissed.
Consequentially, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/23/12/2024
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
28
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31104/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 11-05-
2022, BY THE COURT OF SESSION, PALAKAD
IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
NO.3313/2021
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(CAT)
NO.113 OF 2023 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT
DATED 24-08-2023
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE
WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 29196 OF 2023 BY
THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 25-09-2023
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER IN
G.O.(RT) NO.2443/2024 DATED 18-08-2024
BY THE HOME DEPATMENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(a) True copy of the order dated 18-08-2017
in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 407
of 2016
Exhibit R5(b) True copy of the order dated 04-12-2017
in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.9277 of 2017
Exhibit R5 (d) True copy of the order dated 10.09.2024,
of this Honorable Court in Criminal
Miscellaneous Case No. 4268 of 2022
Exhibit R5(e) True copy of the notification dated
05.08.2024, wherein the name of the
deponent is included in the select lists
for the year 2021, 2022
Exhibit R5(f) True copy of the Judgment of the
Division Bench of this Honorable Court
in WP(C) No.22948 of 2022
Annexure R4(a) True copy of the order dated 08.07.2013
2024:KER:97798
WP(C) NO. 31104 OF 2024
29
Annexure R4(b) True copy of the order dated 03.06.2020
Annexure R4(c) True copy of the order dated 14.02.2022