(1.) Heard Mr.K. Ramakumar for the appellant and Government Pleader Mr.Alexander Thomas for the respondents.
(2.) This writ appeal is against dismissal of O.P.No.5873 of 1999 filed by the appellant, K. Madhusoodanan, who is a businessman running a bakery at Kozhikode, and a public spirited person, aggrieved at the inaction to proceed against the 4th respondent's involvement in Koothuparamba Police firing. According to the appellant, Crime No.268 of 1997 of Koothuparamba Police Station has been registered against various police officers including the 4th respondent, who figures as one of the prominent accused in the case. The case relates to the death of Five persons in police firing on 25th November, 1994. The 4th respondent was examined as witness No.1 before the Commission appointed by the Government for enquiring into the firing. The Commission has submitted his report. It is submitted by the appellant that soon after the registration of the crime, Government placed on suspension most of the police officials involved in the case, but the 4th respondent alone was left out. According to the appellant, the reason for the same is that he was only in favour with the political leadership of the party in power and managed himself to be spared from the disciplinary action, and, therefore, he continues to be in important position of Superintendent of Police. It is submitted that there is no reason at all to confer a special favour on one of the police officers alone while all the rest, including ordinary police constables, who have no clout to command, have been placed under suspension. It is also alleged that there has been mass transfers of police constables in relation to Koothuparamba incident. In the circumstances, the appellant filed the writ petition for a mandamus commanding the Government and the Director General of Police to take action against the 4th respondent also as there is no reason for making any distinction between him and the ordinary police constables involved in the case. The Writ Petition was dismissed by C.S. Rajan, J. by judgment dated 8th March, 1999, which reads thus:
(3.) Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this writ appeal. Mr.Ramakumar, counsel for the appellant submitted that the prayer was to consider the suspension of the 4th respondent as he is also very much involved as the accused in Crime No.268 of 1997, which is a matter which should have been considered by the Government and that the rejection of the writ application is, therefore, improper. He would further submit that there cannot be any discrimination between ordinary police constables and officers in the matter of suspension in relation to the same case and that while all others involved in the crime have been suspended, one person alone is allowed to continue in service, which amounts to gross abuse of power by the Government, of placing employees under suspension. Mr.Ramakumar further submitted that continuing a superior officer in service, while he is an accused in a case, will be contrary to public interest, and that the learned Judge has failed to exercise his powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and went wrong in dismissing the original petition.