N.G. SREEMON Vs. BABYCHAN VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interim orders dated 6/3/2020 and 23/3/2020 in WP(C) No. 28841/2018 are under challenge in this appeal filed by the 4th respondent. The aforesaid orders came to be passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein alleging that the 4th respondent in the writ petition and their subordinates were harassing him. The 4th respondent was working as Circle Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha. According to the petitioner, at the instance of the 5th respondent, he was being unnecessarily summoned to the police station and harassed, without any complaint whatsoever, by the 5th respondent. He apprehended that he will be forced to execute agreements or to issue signed blank cheques in favour of the 5th respondent.

(2.) It seems that during the pendency of the above writ petition, the Inspector General (Vigilance) was directed to conduct an enquiry into the complaint made against 4th respondent. It was noticed that there were more than 30 complaints against the 4th respondent. The Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) reported that the 4th respondent was repeatedly involving in civil disputes over which he has no jurisdiction and he has a tendency to misuse, threat and abuse the position as a police officer. An enquiry report filed by Inspector General of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau had recommended disciplinary action against the aforesaid officer. Having taken note of the said reports, the learned Single Judge by order dated 6/3/2020 directed the concerned authority to pass an order suspending the 4th respondent from service forthwith subject to the enquiry to be concluded. The Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) was directed to take immediate action against the 4th respondent and also to take follow up action for disciplinary enquiry without any further delay. The appellant/4th respondent filed IA No.1/2020 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 6/3/2020 inter alia contending that by order dated 7/3/2020, the Additional Director General of Police and Director, Crime Branch had suspended him from service pending disciplinary action. It was contended that in so far as the order of suspension had been issued only in obedience with the direction issued by this Court, and that too in the absence of any such prayer in the writ petition, appellant had lost an opportunity to show cause why he should not be suspended from service. By order dated 23/3/2020, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said application inter alia observing that the order dated 6/3/2020 came to be passed since there was serious threat to the society and also to safeguard the interest of persons like the writ petitioner. That apart, the writ petitioner was threatened to withdraw the petition. However, it was further observed that nothing precludes the applicant from challenging the order of suspension pointing out the defects in the enquiry and also challenging the findings and observation in the enquiry reports. It was made clear that the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, the Tribunal or any other courts, as the case may be, could examine the case set up by the appellant. It was further observed that the order cannot be vacated since the harassment against the public was enormous. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed.

(3.) The learned senior counsel Sri.M.R.Rajendran Nair appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge committed serious error in directing the disciplinary authority to suspend an officer of the Government. The writ petition has been filed alleging harassment by police and while considering the said petition, certain reports were called for and even assuming that the reports indicated further enquiry into the matter, it is for the disciplinary authority to decide whether the delinquent officer should be suspended from service pending any enquiry. It is also pointed out that when an order of suspension had been passed based on an order passed by the Constitutional Court, no authority will endeavour to vacate the said order of suspension and it may even affect the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that during the COVID epidemic, all orders of suspension against various police officers were revoked and they were asked to report to their parent units for being deployed for crisis related duties. In view of the fact that order of suspension was issued by the disciplinary authority as per directions issued by this Court, the appellant's order of suspension alone was not revoked.