2017 (4) TMI 1270 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant s displacement from the post of State Police Chief in Kerala before the expiry of his tenure of two years was justified in law? Held that - The appellant has been accused of failure to take action against these errant police officers (rather supporting them) and unjustifiably apportioning a part of the blame on the district administration. However, it must be noted that for more than one and a half months the Chief Minister took absolutely no action on the Note dated 13th April, 2016 but just seems to have kept it in his office. Under these circumstances, it is not clear what action could be taken by the appellant or any officer of the government including the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary against the errant police officers while the matter was pending with the Chief Minister. Could they or should they have by-passed the Chief Minister? In any event, nothing has been shown to us to suggest that the Chief Minister was reminded that some action needed to be taken by him or that he should give some specific direction on the file placed before him. In our view therefore, if the appellant failed to take any action against the errant police officers, the entire official machinery starting from the Chief Minister down to the Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary are equally to blame. What is more important in this context is that the recommendation to take action against the errant police officers was made to the Chief Minister and not to the appellant. The second and more serious reason for the transfer (though it is not mentioned by the Chief Minister) is to be found in the first Note dated 26th May, 2016 of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). Perhaps for this reason, it finds only a fleeting mention in the reply affidavit filed in the Central Administrative Tribunal and in this Court, but the detailed counter affidavit elaborates this reason. The allegation has been detailed above and it is not necessary to repeat it, except to say that according to the Home Secretary, the appellant attempted to interfere in the investigations relating to the Puttingal Temple tragedy. The law has been well-settled for many years now that when an order is passed in exercise of a statutory power on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order. Those reasons cannot be supplemented by other reasons through an affidavit or otherwise. Were this not so, an order otherwise bad in law at the very outset may get validated through additional grounds later brought out in the form of an affidavit. The facts and the record of the present case indicate that the Puttingal Temple tragedy and the Jisha murder were not the flash points necessitating the transfer of the appellant. The reason for his transfer was his conduct post the Puttingal Temple tragedy in not taking action against the errant police officers (but supporting them) and in apportioning a part of the blame on the district administration. The reference to the Jisha murder case was an attempt at padding up the reason while the reference to the alleged interference in the investigations by the CB-CID was a red herring or a ruse - the alleged interference was not even in the contemplation of the Chief Minster. The addition of the allegation of interference with the investigations in the Puttingal Temple tragedy is a further attempt in that direction to somehow or the other nail the appellant. The appellant has been unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with. Under the circumstances, we are compelled to set aside the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the order dated 1st June, 2016 and direct the State of Kerala to reinstate the appellant Dr. T.P. Senkumar as the State Police Chief - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's displacement from the post of State Police Chief before the completion of his tenure.
2. Compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Prakash Singh's case regarding police reforms.
3. Interpretation and application of Section 97 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
4. Examination of the appellant's conduct post-Puttingal Temple tragedy and Jisha murder case.
5. Judicial review of the subjective satisfaction of the State Government.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Appellant's Displacement:
The primary issue was whether the appellant’s displacement from the post of State Police Chief before completing his two-year tenure was justified in law. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's removal was not justified, stating that "the removal or displacement or transfer out of an officer from a sensitive tenure post requires serious consideration and good reasons that can be tested so that the officer is not dealt with as a pawn in a game." The Court found that the appellant was displaced summarily and without reasonable cause.

2. Compliance with Supreme Court's Directions in Prakash Singh's Case:
The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., which emphasized insulating the police from political and administrative manipulation. The Court noted that the Kerala Legislature did not fully adopt the directions given in Prakash Singh while enacting the Kerala Police Act, 2011, particularly regarding the binding nature of the State Security Commission's recommendations and the consultation required for the removal of the Director General of Police.

3. Interpretation and Application of Section 97 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011:
Section 97 of the Act mandates a minimum tenure of two years for the State Police Chief but allows for premature transfer under certain conditions, including causing "serious dissatisfaction in the general public about efficiency of police in his jurisdiction." The Court emphasized that any such transfer must be based on verifiable material and not merely on subjective satisfaction. The Court found that the subjective satisfaction of the State Government in this case was not supported by credible material, rendering the appellant's transfer unjustified.

4. Examination of the Appellant's Conduct Post-Puttingal Temple Tragedy and Jisha Murder Case:
The Court examined the appellant’s conduct following the Puttingal Temple tragedy and the Jisha murder case. It was noted that the appellant was not found blameworthy in the official reports regarding the Puttingal Temple tragedy. The Court observed that the Chief Minister took no action on the Note dated 13th April, 2016, which recommended action against three specific police officers. Regarding the Jisha murder case, the Court found the allegations against the appellant to be general and not substantiated by concrete evidence. The Court concluded that the appellant’s conduct did not justify his premature transfer.

5. Judicial Review of the Subjective Satisfaction of the State Government:
The Court reiterated that the subjective satisfaction of the State Government must be based on credible material and is subject to judicial review. The Court found that the reasons provided for the appellant's transfer were not supported by verifiable material. The Court emphasized that mere repetition of statutory language without supporting evidence is insufficient to justify such a transfer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant, Dr. T.P. Senkumar, was unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with. The Court set aside the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Kerala High Court, as well as the order dated 1st June 2016, and directed the State of Kerala to reinstate the appellant as the State Police Chief. The appeal was allowed, highlighting the importance of adhering to the rule of law and ensuring that tenure appointments are not undermined by arbitrary and unsupported actions.

← Previous Next →