High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-30Dismissed

Jiby P. Poulose v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 28086 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date: 2022-08-30
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jiby P. Poulose

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary Home Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The State Police Chief, Police Head Quarters, Vazhuthakkad, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
The Deputy Inspector General of Police Ernakulam Range, South Kalamassery, Ernakulam District
The District Police Chief, District Police Office, Opp Power House, Aluva, Ernakulam Rural
Inspector of Police, Chottanikara Police Station, Vandippetta Road, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Latheef P.K.
• Nithianandan C. Balagopalan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Sunil KuriaKose - GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Jiby P. Poulose, aged 51, was an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Kerala Police. The petitioner challenges disciplinary proceedings initiated after an internal inquiry that culminated in punishment despite the Enquiry Officer recording no guilt on the charges. Exhibit P12 contains the final proceedings issued by the District Police Chief (Rural), Ernakulam, dated 22-6-2021, and is challenged as violative of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with due process and a fair trial. The petitioner also attacks Exhibits P4 and P6—orders issued by the District Police Chief—arguing that they contravene Article 20(2)’s protection against double jeopardy and that the disciplinary process violates due process. He seeks writs of Certiorari and Prohibition and asks that the proscribed disciplinary actions be halted pending this court’s examination. In the course of the hearing, counsel relied on Supreme Court decisions concerning exhaustion of alternate remedies. The court, however, notes that those authorities address exhaustion and not the maintainability of writ petitions when a specific tribunal is available for service matters. It reinforces the principle from L. Chandra Kumar that a person aggrieved by service-matter actions must approach the State Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and that this Court would only entertain a challenge to orders passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 21 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 20(2) of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 323A of the Constitution of IndiaAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985Article 136 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Exhaustion of alternate remedies doctrine
Double jeopardy doctrine
Tribunal-first approach doctrine (L. Chandra Kumar)
Right to life and fair trial under Article 21

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that though he is a serving A.S.I. in the Kerala Police, he was punished after Exhibit P12 proceedings despite the Enquiry Officer finding him not guilty; he challenges Exhibit P12 and related orders as violative of Article 21 and Article 20(2) of the Constitution. He seeks writs of Certiorari and Prohibition and an order prohibiting further disciplinary proceedings pending adjudication. He relies on Supreme Court decisions on exhaustion of alternate remedies (Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai; Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.; Baburam Prakash Chandra v. Antarim Zila Parishad Muzaffar Nagar) but the Court notes those precedents address exhaustion and do not govern the maintainability here. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is invoked; the L. Chandra Kumar principle is applied to direct aggrieved police officers to approach the Kerala Administrative Tribunal under Section 15, with this Court's jurisdiction to review only orders of the Tribunal. The petitioner contends maintainability and due process claims under Article 21.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petitioner must first approach the Kerala Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 since the matter concerns service disputes of police personnel; Article 323A contemplates tribunals for such disputes; Thus, a writ under Article 226 is not maintainable unless orders of the Tribunal are challenged. Relying on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, they submit that this Court should adhere to the Tribunal-first approach and that the earlier Supreme Court decisions cited by the petitioner concern exhaustion of remedies and do not govern this case. They urge dismissal of the writ petition for want of maintainability.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai	1998 (8) SCC (1)	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioner; court treats it as discussing exhaustion, not applicable to the present case.
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.	2003 (2) SCC 107	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioner; court notes its relevance to exhaustion but does not apply it to uphold maintainability.
Baburam Prakash Chandra v. Antarim Zila Parishad Muzaffar Nagar	1969 AIR SC 556	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioner; court does not rely on it for the decision.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union Of India And Others	A.I.R 1997 SC 1125	Positive	Constitution Bench decision followed to require aggrieved police officers to approach the Kerala Administrative Tribunal for service-matter disputes before this High Court can entertain a challenge.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jiby P. Poulose v. State of Kerala & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** ## **TUESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 8TH BHADRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 28086 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** JIBY P POULOSE AGED 51 YEARS S/O POULOSE, PERUMAYAN HOUSE, EDANAD, THOWARA PO,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683571 BY ADVS. LATHEEF P.K. NITHIANANDAN C. BALAGOPALAN 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695010 3 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ERANAKULAM RANGE, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683104 4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE ,OPP POWER HOUSE,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM RURAL, PIN - 683101 5 INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHOTTANIKKARA POLICE STATION, VANDIPPETTA ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682312 BY SRI.SUNIL KURIAKOSE-GP ## **RESPONDENTS:** THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.28086 OF 2022 2 ## **JUDGMENT Dated this the 30[th] day of August, 2022** This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: _“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or directions of like nature to direct and declare, or otherwise quash the Order passed by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, at Exhibit P12 as illegal, unconstitutional and void ab-initio on account of being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which enshrines that the right to a fair trial as part of the right to life as enshrined under Article 21._ _ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or directions of like nature to direct and declare, or otherwise quash the Order passed by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, at Exhibit P4 and P6 as illegal, unconstitutional and void ab-initio on account of being violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which enshrines the PROTECTION FROM DOUBLE JEOPARDY enshrined under Article 20(2). iii) Issue a writ of Prohibition against the State of Kerala to the extent the proceedings are pending, or issue order or directions of like nature to direct and declare that the due process of Disciplinary Proceedings be prohibited forthwith pending perusal of this Hon'ble Court”_ WP(C).No.28086 OF 2022 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner who was a serving A.S.I. in the Police Department of the State of Kerala, is aggrieved by Exhibit P12 proceedings by which the punishment has been imposed on the petitioner, though the Enquiry Officer found him not guilty of the offenses as charged. 3. In answer to the specific query raised by this Court with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the decisions of the Apex Court in **Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai** [1998 (8) SCC (1)], **Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.** , [2003 (2) SCC 107] and **Baburam Prakash Chandra v. Antarim Zila Parishad Muzaffar Nagar** [1969 AIR SC 556]. Several other decisions of the Apex Court are relied on. 4. I immediately notice that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are specifically with regard to exhaustion of alternate WP(C).No.28086 OF 2022 4 remedies before approaching this Court. In the instant case, the issue is not with regard to exhaustion of any alternative remedy. 5. Article 323A of the Constitution of India provides for formation of Tribunals for adjudication of disputes and complaints in respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. The Article specifically provides for making of a law which specifies the jurisdiction and powers of such Tribunals as also excluding the jurisdiction of all courts except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 with respect to disputes or complaints referred to in Clause 1. 6. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is the law which has been made with regard to formation of Administrative Tribunals with regard to service conditions of persons appointed in the service of the Union and of the States. Section 15 of the Act provides for the WP(C).No.28086 OF 2022 5 jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Administrative Tribunals. It is provided that the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise jurisdiction powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts except the Supreme Court in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment and all service matters concerning the person who has been appointed to any civil service of the state or civil post under the State. Of course, this Court as well as the Apex Court has held that a provision in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 cannot act as an exclusion of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in **L. Chandra Kumar v. Union Of India And Others** [A.I.R 1997 SC 1125] a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court specifically held that where there is a specific Tribunal provided for adjudication of disputes with regard to service matters, the person aggrieved by any such action has first to approach such Tribunal and it is only against orders WP(C).No.28086 OF 2022 6 passed by the Tribunal that this Court, specifically a Division Bench of this Court, would have power to consider the issues in judicial review. 7. The decisions of the Apex Court on the point are quite specific, in view of the fact that the petitioner is challenging orders passed in disciplinary proceedings against him and since it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a member of the police force under the Police Department of the State of Kerala, I am of the opinion that he has first to approach the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The decisions relied upon have absolutely no application in the instant case. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** SSK/30/08 WP(C).No.28086 OF 2022 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |ExhibitP1|TRUE COPY ORDER (PROCEEDINGS) NO.H2-| |---|---| ||23134/2020/E ISSUED BY THE| ||__RESPONDENT,DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF| ||(RURAL), ERNAKULAM DATED 23-6-2020.)| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF| ||WAS ON THE BASIS OF A REPORT| ||SUBMITTED BY THE DY.SP SPECIAL BRANCH| ||VIDE NO.476/SBA/2020/ER DATED 5-5-| ||2020| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF NATURE OF A PRELIMINARY| ||ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DY.SP| ||PERUMBAVOOR VIDE NO.1308/GL/SDP/2020| ||DATED 14-5-2020| |ExhibitP4|TRUE COPY OF DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF| ||(ERNAKULAM RURAL ) ISSUED ORDER| ||NO.A1-209/2020/E(D.O.NO.223/2020/E)| ||DATED 13-5-2020| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED| ||STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES ISSUED TO THE| ||DY.SP, PERUMBAVOOR| |Exhibit P6|DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ISSUED ORDER| ||VIDE ORDER NO.A1-209/2020/E| ||(D.O.NO.324/2020/E) DATED 18-6-2020| |ExhibitP7|TRUECOPY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED MEMO| ||OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF| ||ALLEGATIONS VIDE NO.178/TD/20//CKRA| ||DATED 8-7-2020| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION ALONG| ||WITH CONNECTED RECORDS SUBMITTED BY| ||THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH| ||RESPONDENT AGAINST THE MEMO OF| ||CHARGES ON 12-9-2020| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON| ||DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AS SUBMITTED| ||BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND THE| ||PUNISHMENT ORDER (UNDATED, AND IN OWN| ||HANDWRITING) OF THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT,DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,| ||ERNAKULAM RURAL DATED 06/02/2021| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE| ||ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED| WP(C).No.28086 OF 2022 8 ||29.03.2021| |---|---| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED AN| ||EXPLANATION ON 12-4-2021 BEFORE THE| ||4TH RESPONDENT,DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF| ||(RURAL), ERNAKULAM| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DISTRICT| ||POLICE CHIEF (RURAL), ERNAKULAM| ||BEARING NO. H2-23134/2020/E(4) DATED| ||22-6-2021| |Exhibit P13|TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE| ||PETITIONER, AND A COPY OF THE ORDER| ||REJECTING THE APPEAL BY THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT DATED 19.08.2021| |Exhibit P14|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION| ||SUBMITTED THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED| ||05.02.2022| |Exhibit P15|TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 9/64 (NO.| ||G5-71326/61, DATED 22-04-64| |Exhibit P16|TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 11/75 (NO.| ||C4-36858/75, DATED 28-04-75| |Exhibit P17|TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 11/75 (NO.| ||C4-36858/75, DATED 28-04-75|