The apex court had on April 24 ordered the reinstatement of Senkumar, saying he was transferred by the ruling LDF government "unfairly" and "arbitrarily".
The contempt plea, filed against Chief Secretary Nalini Netto, alleged there was a "sinister intention" behind her "resolute refusal" to implement the court's direction and sought strict punishment against her.
"It is reiterated that the contemnor (Chief Secretary) is the author of the note (to remove him from the post of the State Police Chief) dated May 26, 2016 and therefore would be reluctant to see the Petitioner (Senkumar) receive what is due to him by virtue of this court's judgement.
The petition sought punishment to Netto under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972 for disobedience of the order and referred to a case involving the Chief Secretary of Karnataka in which the top court had ordered one month imprisonment to the official for not implementing the order.
Senkumar, who is due to retire on June 30, has also urged the court to extend his tenure as State Police Chief for the period which was illegally taken off from him.
Senkumar said he came across certain media reports indicating that the state government will not act on the judgement unless its certified copy is available to it.
Earlier, while reinstating Senkumar, the top court had 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".
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.
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 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.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
