Integrity Certificate Must Not Be Withheld Merely Because Inquiry Is Pending: Kerala HC Dismisses Walayar Rape Victims’ Mother’s Plea Against SP

The Kerala High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the mother of Walayar rape victims who challenged the Integrity Certificate issued to the Superintendent of Police (SP).
The Court observed that an Integrity Certificate must not be withheld merely because an inquiry is pending.
A Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias noted, “As per the above Regulation and the norms, the name of an officer to be included in the list shall be treated as provisional, if the State Government withholds the Integrity Certificate, if any proceedings (departmental or criminal) are pending against the officer or if there is anything adverse to him which renders him unsuitable for the appointment to service. Explanation I of the above Regulation states that the proceedings shall be treated as pending only if a charge sheet is issued to the officer or is filed in a court. Likewise, the Norms stipulate that the Integrity Certificate shall not be withheld merely because an inquiry is pending.”
The Bench added that the State Government has to examine each case with reference to the nature and gravity of the charges and the evidence available on the basis of the investigation.
Senior Advocate K. Ramkumar appeared for the Petitioner while Senior Advocate George Poonthottam and Government Pleader Ajith Viswanathan appeared for the Respondents.
In this case, the Petitioner’s two minor daughters died under suspicious circumstances in the year 2017. Though a criminal case registered, the investigation was flawed and a few persons were arraigned as accused in the crime for committing the offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), and offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, the accused were acquitted in the case and in an Appeal filed against the Order of acquittal, the High Court found serious illegalities in the investigation and trial and hence, ordered a re-trial. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over the probe but the Trial Court refused to accept the chargesheet and ordered further probe. The Petitioner challenged the Integrity Certificate issued to SP and several criminal prosecutions were pending against him. It was alleged that he made obnoxious remarks against the Petitioner and her deceased daughters through the visual medium to insult and humiliate them.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “In the present case, in addition to the findings and the directions of the Division Bench in Ext.P2 judgment, which has attained finality, as of today, there is no charge sheet pending against the 5th respondent. Moreover, the 4th respondent has doubted the reliability of the voice clip submitted by the petitioner and held that the petitioner had not submitted any substantial evidence to revoke the Integrity Certificate. It is based on the above findings that the 4th respondent, in its wisdom, has concluded that the 5th respondent is entitled to an Integrity Certificate.”
The Court further noted that the core of the argument of the Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in attacking the Order is that the same is arbitrary, hit by the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness, an abuse of process of power, and the decision is rendered without following the due procedure of law.
“On a careful consideration of the facts, the materials on record, the observations of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment and the reasoning in Ext.P4 order, this Court does not find any ground or material to hold that Ext.P4 order or the decision-making process is actuated with malice or malafides. The 4th respondent in its wisdom, after considering the matter in detail, has decided to issue the Integrity Certificate to the 5th respondent”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the Order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- XXXXXXXXXX v. The Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:97798)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate K. Ramkumar, Advocates P.V. Jeevesh, C.K. Radhakrishnan, and C.R. Neelakandan Namboodiri.
Respondents: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Government Pleader Ajith Viswanathan, Advocates Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Rajit, Arun Chandran, Anupa Anna Jose, Jayaraman S., Dhanya Sunny, and Ann Milka, and Ramkumar.