Dr. T. P. Senkumar IPS (Retd.) v. Union of India and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 32879 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS, (RETD.) AGED 61 YEARS FORMER STATE POLICE CHIEF, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT T.C 38/976, ANAD LANE, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE NO.695013.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.VENUGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, GOI, 5TH FLOOR, SARDAR PATEL, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.** - **3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (AR-XII) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695001.** - **4 SMT NALINI NETTO IAS, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C.IX/15771 'SREE SAI' TEMPLE ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 10 NOW ACTING AS CHIEF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, CMT.C.G.PREETHA,CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2019, THE COURT ON 22.3.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 32879 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of March, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, a former State Police Chief, has approached this Court seeking directions to the 1[st] respondent, Secretary to Government of India to re-submit the files recommending the petitioner as an Administrative Member of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal so as to obtain sanction from the Chief Justice of India in the light of the quashing of the proceedings pending against the petitioner by Exhibits P8, P9 and P10 judgments as also Exhibits P7 and P11. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Advocate General and the learned Central Government Counsel. 3. The petitioner submits that his name had been recommended by the State Government and had been placed before the Chief Justice of India. However, on the ground that there were cases pending against the petitioner, the proposal was not accepted. It is contended that the petitioner had been removed from the post of State Police Chief which was challenged by him. Pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5227 of 2017, the petitioner was directed to be reappointed as State Police Chief. This led to Exhibit P1 contempt of court proceedings against the Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala. It is stated that by Exhibit P2 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court had directed the State Government to forward the list of members of the 3 _**WP(C).32879/18**_ Kerala Administrative Tribunal to the Central Government for placing it before the Chief Justice of India. It was held that the State Government had no role in the matter and that the list prepared in terms of Section 5 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which was forwarded with its recommendation to the Central Government, which, in turn, is to appoint the members in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. It is stated that all the cases against the petitioner now stand quashed by the judgments relied on by the petitioner and that as such, the recommendation in respect of the petitioner is liable to be considered. A decision of the Apex Court in _**Dr.Ram Lakhan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh**_ [(2015)16 SCC 715] is relied on to contend that where a public servant is mulcted with frivolous litigation without any merit, compensation is liable to be suffered by him due to such false cases. 4. A statement has been placed on record by respondents 2 and 3. It is contended that though the selection committee had recommended the petitioner for appointment as Administrative Member in the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the recommendation as forwarded by the State Government had been returned by the Chief Justice of India on the ground that there are civil and criminal cases pending against the petitioner. It is stated that Exhibit P6 would show that in respect of the petitioner, the Chief Justice of India had directed that the same be resubmitted on receipt of final outcome of the cases/complaints stated to be pending before various forums. It is 4 _**WP(C).32879/18**_ stated that though the criminal cases had been quashed, there is a civil case pending against the petitioner as O.S.No.370 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that pursuant to long pending proceedings including the direction of the Apex Court to pay compensation of Rs.50 lakhs, the plaintiff in the above suit Sri.S.Nambi Narayanan had filed the suit claiming damages amounting to Rs.1 crore from the defendants therein. It is stated that the petitioner herein is the 7[th] defendant in the said suit and a compensation of Rs.7 lakhs is demanded by the plaintiff from the writ petitioner. It is therefore contended that in view of the fact that there are pending proceedings against the petitioner as on today, there is no question of forwarding the petitioner's case for consideration again, since Exhibit P6 reveals that the Chief Justice of India had directed deferring of the matter till all the cases are disposed of. 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent as well. It is stated therein that on receipt of the proposal from the State Government, the Government of India had submitted the proposal on 18.9.2017 to the Chief Justice of India for consideration and decision. It is stated that the Chief Justice of India had returned the proposal mentioning that the State Government had objected to consideration of the petitioner in the wake of certain civil and criminal cases/complaints pending before various forums and had directed to reconstitute on receipt of the outcome of the said cases/complaints. It 5 _**WP(C).32879/18**_ is stated that the observation of the Honourable Chief Justice of India as well as the representation dated 12.7.2018 received from the petitioner had been sent to the State Government on 31.8.2018 for taking necessary action. It is stated that on 14.11.2018, the State Government had communicated to the 1[st] respondent certain information pertaining to the cases against the petitioner and that the said communication was not a proposal in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Administrative Tribunal (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011. It is contended that the Chief Justice of India had, on 9.10.2017, stated that the proposal in respect of the petitioner was objected to by the State Government. On consideration of civil and criminal cases/complaints pending before the various fora, the Chief Justice of India required the proposal to be resubmitted on receipt of final outcome of the said cases/complaints. 6. I have considered the contentions advanced. The prayer of the petitioner is for a reconsideration of the proposal for his appointment as Member of the Administrative Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the State Government is duty bound to forward the proposal in view of the findings contained in Exhibits P2 and P3 judgments. The State Government would, on the other hand, contend that the proposal had been forwarded with due recommendations. But in view of the fact that civil/criminal cases were pending as against the petitioner, the Chief Justice of India had 6 _**WP(C).32879/18**_ directed the resubmission of the said proposal on receipt of the “final outcome of the said cases/complaints”. It is contended that the original suit filed by Sri.Nambi Narayanan had already been instituted in 2003 and that it was one of the cases about which reference had been made by the State Government. It is stated that since the Chief Justice of India has specifically directed the resubmission after the final outcome of the cases, the petitioner cannot contend that the recommendation is liable to be resubmitted at any point in time before the final outcome in the suit is also known. 7. I am of the opinion that the prayer sought in the writ petition cannot be granted, since the Central Government specifically states that the proposal could be resubmitted only after the final outcome of all the cases are known. It is submitted before me that the final outcome of the suit is not forthcoming, since the suit is still pending. In the above view of the matter, the prayers sought for cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ## Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** _vgs_ 7 _**WP(C).32879/18**_ ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER (CIVIL) NO.667/2017 BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.** **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.10798/2017 DATED 06/04/2017.** **EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE COC NO.1079/2017 DATED 25/09/2017.** **EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE COC NO.1079/2017 DATED 01/08/2017 TO EXPEDITE AND COMPLETED FORMALITIES OF SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF COMMUNICATION ALONG WITH FILE NO59/AR.12(2)/2017 P & ARD DATED 17/09/2017 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.106/2018 DATED 12/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT INDICATING CLEARANCE OF LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO GET SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.DO.NO.A11014/3/2017-AT DATED 11/10/2017 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF ORDER IN SLP(CRL.)NO.7638/2018 DATED 28/09/2018 DISMISSING THE LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.C.6076/2017 DATED 13/04/2018 ISSUED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.17152/2018 DATED 05/07/2018 ISSUED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.(CRL.)NO.535/2017 DATED 24/07/2017 ISSUED BY HONBLE COURT OF KERALA.** 8 _**WP(C).32879/18**_ - **EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF ORDER IN SLP(CRLO.)NO.751/2018 DATED 29/01/2018 WITH COST OF RS.25,000/TOWARDS SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION LAYERS FUND.** - **EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF VIGILANCE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.E11-14951/17/POL DATED 05/06/2017 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU.** - **EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF INTEGRITY CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.811734/SPI.C.3/2016/GAD DATED 20/08/2016 ISSUED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF GO(Rt)NO.1625/1996/HOME DATED 10.7.1996 APPOINTING PETITIONER AS INVESTIGATION OFFICER.** - **EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF LETTER SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO DGP DATED 16.7.1996.** - **EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HONOURABLE DIVISION BENCH IN O.P.12747/1996 DATED 27.11.1996 RATIFYING G.O.** - **EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.370/2003. EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY STATE IN O.S.370/2003.** - **EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 7TH DEFENDANT IN O.S.370/2003 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**