SC reinstates T P Senkumar as Kerala DGP

The Supreme Court today ordered the reinstatment of former Kerala DGP T P Senkumar, saying he was transferred "unfairly and arbitrarily".
The court also gave credence to Senkumar's allegation that he was transferred due to "political vendetta" by stating that the rule of law should not become a casualty to the whims and fancies of political excecutive.
The top court said no one could help 'God's own country' (Kerala's tourism tagline) if "it is bent upon making irregular or illegal appointments to sensitive posts".
It set aside the order of the Kerala High Court which had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) decision that had not found fault with the state government's decision to transfer Senkumar from the post of the state police chief which was taken over by Loknath Behra.

The state government's contention that Senkumar was transferred as a fallout of the events after the Puttingal Temple tragedy, in which 110 people were killed in April 2016, and the infamous Jisha murder case last May, did not cut much ice with the apex court.
"On an overall consideration of the material on record and considering the case in its proper perspective, that is the events post the Puttingal Temple tragedy and the Jisha murder and not the two tragedies themselves, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant has been unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with," a bench comprising Justices M B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said.

"Under the circumstances, we are compelled to set aside the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the order dated June 1, 2016 and direct the State of Kerala to reinstate the appellant T P Senkumar as the State Police Chief," the bench added.

The bench said it was "little disturbed" with the view expressed in the detailed counter affidavit and elsewhere that the appointment of Senkumar was irregular if not illegal.
"If that is so and the State Government of Kerala is bent upon making irregular or illegal appointments to sensitive posts, then no one can help God's own country," it said.

The bench also said that "the rule of law should not become a casualty to the whims and fancies of the political excecutive" while referring to Prakash Singh case of 2006 in which it had dealt with the police reforms in the country.
The state government had told the court that Senkumar's transfer was not a punishment for the "lapse" which had led to the Puttingal fire tragedy incident but it was for how he had handled the fallout of the tragedy and the dissatisfaction among the general public on the efficiency of the police.
The apex court, however, snubbed the Kerala government and its Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan by putting questions whether he would remove the police chief if his cabinet collegues were under investigation in any case.

"The cabinet colleagues of the chief minister or senior bureaucrats (including the Chief Secretary) might need to be investigated in an appropriate case.
"Can the Chief Minister then remove the State Police Chief on the ground that in such an event he or she does not enjoy the confidence of the Chief Minister or that there is no "complete rapport and understanding" between the State Police Chief and the Chief Minister? The answer is quite obvious," the bench observed.
The court also said that "it would be tragic if this Court were to come to a conclusion that the removal of a person from a sensitive but tenure appointment based on a stature is the prerogative of the government and judicial review is not available merely because the post concerned is a sensitive one".

Senkumar had earlier told the court that his transfer was a clear case of political vendetta.
The Kerala government had on April 11 defended in the apex court its decision to transfer Senkumar, saying he had protected "erring" police officials in the 2016 Puttingal temple fire tragedy in which 110 people were killed.
The court, however, brushed aside the state government's reference to Senkumar's interference in the investigation in the Puttingal Temple tragedy and said the reference was somewhat incongruous.
"There is nothing to suggest what advantage could be gained by Senkumar in scuttling the investigations in the Puttingal Temple tragedy, particularly since in an earlier part of the detailed counter affidavit it is admitted that the State Police Chief is not personally responsible for supervising the conduct of events or adherence to safety measures in relation to large public gatherings. Therefore, why would the appellant want to interfere in the investigations," the bench asked.

The court also said prima facie satisfaction of the government to transfer the official must be based on some cogent and rational material.
"Nothing has been placed before us in this regard except the view that there was dissatisfaction among the general public on the efficiency of the police.
"...There must be some material on record (other than a newspaper report) but unfortunately nothing has been pointed out to us during the course of submissions. It is not enough to merely contend that the State Government was subjectively satisfied that the appellant ought to be transferred out as the State Police Chief," the bench said.

Senkumar had challenged his removal as a violation of Section 97(2)(e) of Kerala Police Act which assures a two-year tenure to the DGP.
"The opinion of serious dissatisfaction must be based on verifiable material and not a perception that the Chief Minister or other senior functionary might have or the "public expectation" (as learned counsel for the State put it) that the Chief Minister might imagine. Quite often public opinion can be misleading or motivated," the bench said.