No arbitrary transfer, insists Supreme Court

Kochi: The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court chose to retain the Section 97 (2) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, which empowers the state government to transfer the state police chief, but said the decision “must be based on verifiable material and not a perception that the chief minister or other senior functionary might have or the public expectation’ that the chief minister might imagine. Excerpts from the judgment:   

The right to transfer:
The Kerala Legislature was, perhaps, quite right in adding clause (e) to Section 97(2) of the Act to the effect that if there is serious public dissatisfaction about the efficiency of the police, a police officer may be transferred even if he or she has not completed the normal tenure of two years. While this transfer could be affected by the government on being prima facie satisfied of public dissatisfaction, the assessment would necessarily have to be made in an objective and not a subjective manner otherwise the entre purpose of a secure tenure appointment would be nullified.

Was the transfer justifiable:
The question for our consideration is whether the appellant’s displacement from the post of state police chief in Kerala before the expiry of his tenure of two years was justified in law. In our opinion, the answer is in the negative. The removal or displacement or transfer out of an officer from a sensitive tenure post requires serious consideration and good reasons that can be tested so that the officer is not dealt with as a pawn in a game. Unfortunately, the somewhat exacting standards are absent in the present case and the appellant was displaced from the post of state police chief summarily and without reasonable cause.

Was Senkumar to be blamed for Puttingal lapses:
The note (dated 13th April, 2016  by additional chief secretary–home Nalini Netto) concluded: “The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the field officers have failed in implementing the order of the district magistrate; in following up the field situation on a minute to minute basis so that this tragedy could have been averted. There is absolute dereliction of duty and abdication of responsibility on the part of the ACP, Chathanur and DCP, Kollam City in not effectively monitoring the situation in the temple in the night of 9th April, 2016, resulting in a tragedy claiming more than 110 human lives.

In the meanwhile, soon after the Puttingal Temple tragedy, the Kerala High Court took notice of the tragedy and registered a suo motu writ petition being W.P. (C) No.14978 of 2016. In this writ petition, an affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary of the State on 13th April, 2016. The affidavit gives the sequence of events which is more or less the same as in the Note dated 13th April, 2016. With regard to the role of the police, he stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit as follows: “Subsequently on 09.04.2016, the police made all bandobust arrangements for the conduct of the festival and there was a scheme prepared by the police for crowd management as well to prevent commission of offences…
Significantly, even the Chief Secretary did not make any adverse comment against the appellant (in the affidavit).