XXXXXXXXXX Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 5 th 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 Sec. 23(1) of the POCSO Act. The 5th respondent's application for conferment of IPS is under consideration by the 1st respondent, for which purpose an integrity certificate is required from the 2nd respondent. Although the 2nd respondent was initially reluctant to grant the integrity certificate, the same was issued under the cover of Ext.P2 judgment passed by this Court. The 2nd respondent has suppressed the material facts regarding the pendency of criminal prosecution against the 5th 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.

(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 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 5threspondent 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 Sec. 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 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.

(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.