JOHNSON PADAMADAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 4th day of March, 2021 Petitioner claims to be the President of Kerala Bus Transport Association State Committee and as such, concerned about the functioning of the office of the Transport Commissioner and the unauthorised, illegal and corrupt practices adopted by officers in the Motor Vehicles Department. The specific allegation in the writ petition is against the corrupt practices adopted by the 7th respondent, while working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector at the Sub Regional Transport Office, Mattancherry. The particular instance highlighted by the petitioner is the vehicle checking conducted by the 7th respondent on 08.10.2014, near the Toll Booth on the Indira Gandhi Road in Wellingdon Island. According to the petitioner, the checking was conducted after duty hours and without obtaining prior permission from superior officers. It is alleged that the 7th respondent had reached the spot in her husband's car and not in the departmental vehicle. That, during the course of inspection, the folder containing the fine amount collected, the check report book, TR-5 book and seized driving licences kept inside the car were reportedly lost. Instead of reporting the matter at the Harbour Police Station situated close by, the 7th respondent lodged a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mattancherry and the complaint was forwarded to the Harbour Police Station only on 11.10.2014, three days after the incident. Even though a crime was registered under Section 379 IPC, it was closed as undetected. Instead of conducting a departmental enquiry and imposing severe punishment on the 7th respondent, the superior officials blindly accepted her explanation and closed the proceedings by directing to recover the amount of Rs.21,400/- lost from the possession of the 7th respondent. According to the petitioner, the actual amount collected by the 7th respondent was Rs.4,45,000/- and the claim of having collected only Rs.21,400/- as fine, is false. The petitioner filed Ext.P8 complaint before the 4th respondent, seeking a detailed enquiry into the misconduct of the 7th respondent and appropriate departmental action against her. The complaint having evoked no response, the petitioner filed Ext.P12 before the 1st respondent, praying for registration of crime against the 7th respondent and an enquiry by the Vigilance Department. Ext.P12 also being left unanswered, the writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

(2.) In her counter affidavit, the 7th respondent has refuted the allegations, terming them to be false, frivolous and ill-motivated. Further, she has questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition. According to the 7th respondent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

(3.) As regards the incident that took place on 08.10.2014, the version of the 7th respondent is that, while returning home after conducting checking near the CISF check post at Wellingdon Island between 7.30 p.m and 9.00 p.m, she realised that the folder containing the check report book, TR5 receipt book, fine amount of Rs.21,400/- and four driving licences seized by her were missing. Immediately, she rushed back to the spot and searched the entire area with the help of the CISF personnel present there. Having failed to recover the missing documents and cash, information was given at the Harbour Police Station. But, the police did not register a crime or enter the information in the complaint register. Instead, the crime was registered on 11.10.2014, that too, after the 7th respondent approached the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who directed the Station House Officer, Harbour Police Station, to register the crime. The Police failed to identify the culprits or recover the stolen articles and filed final report before the jurisdictional court, requesting to treat the crime as undetected. The loss of cash and receipt books resulted in departmental action being initiated against the 7th respondent. The disciplinary authority, after providing opportunity to submit explanation, found the 7th respondent to have been negligent in handling the cash and documents. Consequently, the fine amount of Rs.21,400/- lost from her possession, was fixed as her personal liability. Pursuant to the order issued by the Transport Commissioner, the sum of Rs.21,400/- was recovered from the salary of the 7th respondent.