DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 24-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 881 
DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5227of2017) 
APRIL 24, 2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Kera/a Police Act, 2011 - s. 97 - Transfer of State· Police Chief , 
appellant - Before completion of mandated ininimum ·tenure of two 
C 
years for the State Police Chief - On ground that he caused "serious 
public dissarisfaction about efficiency of police"- Whether such 
transfer/displacement justified in law - State Government contended 
that only a prima facie satisfaction of the Government was required 
to transfer the appellant due to his conduct subsequent to an incident 
of murder and a temple tragedy, which resulted in nuri1ber of deaths 
D 
and injuries to many - It was alleged that appellant failed to take 
action against the errant police officersfor the temple tragedy and 
also failed to provide adequate response to the incident of murder 
- Held: There is no material on record except the view that there . 
was dissatisfaction among the general public on the efficiency of · E 
the police - It is not enough to merely contend that the State 
Government was subjeetively satisfied that the appellant ought to 
.be transferred out as the State Police Chief - This make-believe 
prima facie satisfaction by itself cannot take out judicial review of 
administrative action in the garb of subjective satisfaction ° of the 
State Government - The removal or displacement of any senior level 
F 
officer from a tenure appointment must be for compelling reasons 
and must be justified by the concerned authority, if called upon to 
do so, on material that can be objectively tested - Significantly, 
appellant was not found blameworthy in any manner whatsoever, it 
was only the three errant police officers who were found at fault -
G 
No justification to conclude that the appellant alone deserved to be . 
acted against only because he supported his subordinates - Appellant 
has been unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with - He was displaced 
from the post of the State Police Chief summarily and without 
reasonable cause - State Government directed to reinstate him as 
881 
H 
882 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 6 S.C.R. 
the State Police Chief - Service Law - Transfer - In case of tenure 
appointment - Administrative Law - Judicial review. 
Administrative Law - Statutory Authority - Order passed by 
Chief Minister to replace the State Police Chief - On ground of 
unsatisfactory leadership of appellant leading to serious 
dissatisfaction among general public ~ State Police Chief-appellant 
challenged the order - State in a detailed counter affidavit further 
alleged that appellant attempted to interfere in the investigation of 
Temple tragedy - Held: Validity of an order passed in exercise of 
statutory power on certain grounds. must be judged by the reasons 
mentioned in the order - Those reasons cannot be supplemented by 
other reasons through affidavit or otherwise. 
Constitution of India -Art.32 rlw. Art. 142 -Power of Supreme 
Court to issue necessary directions to fill the vacuum till the 
legislation steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its 
role - Discussed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The facts and the record of the present case 
indicate that the Temple tragedy and the murder of a dalit girl 
were not the flash points necessitating the transfer of the 
appellant. The reason for his transfer was his conduct post the 
Temple tragedy in not taking action against the errant police 
officers (but supporting them) and in apportioning a part of the 
blame on the district administration. The reference to the Jisha 
murder case was an attempt at padding up the reason while the 
reference to the alleged interference in the investigations by the 
CB-CID was a red herring or a ruse - the alleged interference 
was not even in the contemplation of the Chief Minster. The 
addition of the allegation of interference with the investigations 
in the Temple tragedy is a further attempt in that direction - to 
somehow or the other nail the appellant. (Para 87) (918-A-C) 
2. Insofar as taking action against the errant police officers 
for the Temple tragedy is concerned, the Chief Minister of the 
State also took no action for more than a month after the Note 
was put up by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). The Chief 
Minister did not take any action in spite of the Note pinpointing 
the three errant police officers again

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.