Madhusoodanan v. State of Kerala — 1999 DIGILAW 396 (KER)

JUDGMENT AR. Lakshmanan, A.C.J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Ramakumar for the Appellant and Government Pleader Mr. Alexander Thomas for the Respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is against dismissal of O.P. No. 5873 of 1999 filed by the Appellant, K. Madhusoodanan, who is a businessman running a bakery at Kozhikode, and a public spirited person, aggrieved at the inaction to proceed against the 4th Respondent's involvement in Koothuparamba Police firing. According to the Appellant, Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Koothuparamba Police Station has been registered against various police officers including the 4th Respondent, who figures as one of the prominent accused in the case. The case relates to the death of five persons in police firing on 25th November, 1994. The 4th Respondent was examined as witness No. 1 before the Commission appointed by the Government for enquiring into the firing. The Commission has submitted his report. It is submitted by the Appellant that soon after the registration of the crime, Government placed on suspension most of the police officials involved in the case, but the 4th Respondent alone was left out. According to the Appellant, the reason for the same is that he was only in favour with the political leadership of the party in power and managed himself to be spared from the disciplinary action, and, therefore, he continues to be in important position of Superintendent of Police. It is submitted that there is no reason at all to confer a special favour on one of the police officers alone while all the rest, including ordinary police constables, who have no clout to command, have been placed under suspension. It is also alleged that there has been mass transfers of police constables in relation to Koothuparamba incident. In the circumstances, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition for a mandamus commanding the Government and the Director General of Police to take action against the 4th Respondent also as there is no reason for making any distinction between him and the ordinary police constables involved in the case. The writ petition was dismissed by C.S. Rajan, J. by judgment dated 8th March, 1999, which reads thus: The Petitioner prays for a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to put the 4th Respondent under suspension till the trial in Grime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is over. The writ petition was dismissed by C.S. Rajan, J. by judgment dated 8th March, 1999, which reads thus: The Petitioner prays for a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to put the 4th Respondent under suspension till the trial in Grime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is over. There is a further prayer for a direction to the 3rd Respondent, to consider and incorporate offences under Sections 465 and 477A of I.P.C. against the 4th Respondent, who is the 19th accused in Crime No. 268/97. Regarding the first prayer, it is for the Respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It will be improper for this Court to take any action under Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. Regarding the 2nd prayer, it is improper for this Court to take a decision unless this Court is satisfied that the 4th Respondent is prima facie guilty under the above Sections. The Original Petition is dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed this writ appeal. Mr. Ramakumar, Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prayer was to consider the suspension of the 4th Respondent as he is also very much involved as the accused in Crime No. 268 of 1997, which is a matter which should have been considered by the Government and that the rejection of the writ application is, therefore, improper. He would further submit that there cannot be any discrimination between ordinary police constables and officers in the matter of suspension in relation to the same case and that while all others involved in the crime have been suspended, one person alone is allowed to continue in service, which amounts to gross abuse of power by the Government, of placing employees under suspension. Mr. Ramakumar further submitted that continuing a superior officer in service, while he is an accused in a case, will be contrary to public interest, and that the learned Judge has failed to exercise his powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and went wrong in dismissing the Original Petition. 4. In the writ appeal, the Government was directed to produce the entire records and to file a statement on behalf of the State. A statement was filed on 3rd July, 1999 by one Mr. 4. In the writ appeal, the Government was directed to produce the entire records and to file a statement on behalf of the State. A statement was filed on 3rd July, 1999 by one Mr. Sekharan Miniyodan, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur Range, Kannur, wherein it is stated that the investigation did not reveal any offence either under Section 465 or under Section 477(A) I.P.C. on the part of the 4th Respondent and hence those sections had not been put against him. The details regarding the accused officials who were placed under suspension from service and who were found to have committed serious offences including offence under Section 302 I.P.C. have also been furnished. The details are as follows: 1. A-2-Sri Abdul Hakkim Bathery, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kannur (Now retired). 2. A-3-Sri T.T. Antony, Deputy Collector (Housing), Kannur. 3. A-4-Sri P. Damodaran, P.C. 2617, Kannur Town Police Station. 4. A-5-Sri V.K. Abdul Salam, P.C. 2775, Kannur Town Police Station. 5. A-6-Sri K. Balachandran, P.C. 3998, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 6. A-7-Sri P.K. Luckose, P.C. 3967, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 7. A-8-Sri K. Lakshmanan, P.C. 3547, Armed Reserve, Kannur (Now Village Extension Officer, Naduvil). 8. A-9-Sri P.M. Ammed, P.C. 2755, K.A.P. 4 Bn. Mangattuparamba (Now P.C. 1121 of Wayanad District). 9. A-10-Sri Ravada A. Chandrasekhar, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Thalassery (Now Superintendent of Police). 10. A-11- Sri T.V. Sasidharan, H.G. 3891, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 11. A-12-Sri K.V. Rajan, P.C. 3940, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 12. A-13-Sri K. Sahadevan, P.C. 3960, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 13. A-14-Sri N.K. Premnath, P.C. 3941, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 14. A-15-Sri Stanly Joseph, P.C. 3965, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 15. A-16-Sri P. Suresh, P.C. 4010, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 16. A-17-Sri P.V. Chandran, P.C. 4025, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 17. A-18-Sri E. Premdas, P.C. 3279, Armed Reserve, Kannur. It is stated further that accused Nos. 2, 6 and 7, viz. M/s Abdul Hakkim Bathery, K. Balachandran and P.K. Luckose were placed under suspension prior to the registration of the case for certain allegations connected with. Kuthuparamba police firing incident, and that accused No. 20 Sri G. Govindan Nambiar, who was the then Additional District Magistrate, Kannur, retired from service prior to the registration of the case. It is also stated that the first accused is Sri M.V. Raghavan, who was formerly a Minister of the State. Kuthuparamba police firing incident, and that accused No. 20 Sri G. Govindan Nambiar, who was the then Additional District Magistrate, Kannur, retired from service prior to the registration of the case. It is also stated that the first accused is Sri M.V. Raghavan, who was formerly a Minister of the State. In paragraphs of the statement details regarding the accused officials who have not been placed under suspension from service, have been furnished. According to the State, they have committed only lighter offences, which comes under Section 201 I.P.C. only. The said officials are: A-19-Sri K. Padmakumar, Superintendent of Police, Kannur. (Now Commissioner of Police, Calicut City) A-21-Sri M. Radhakrishnan Nair, C.I. of Police Kuthuparamba. (Now Deputy Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Idukki). A-22-Sri K.P. Philip, C.I. of Police, Thalassery. (Now Deputy Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Wayanad). 5. It is submitted by Government Pleader Mr. Alexander Thomas that there was no need to place the 4th Respondent, who is accused No. 19 in the case, under suspension and that he was transferred outside the district soon after the incident in question and has been serving outside Kannur District since then. It is further submitted that the investigation is at its fag end and the relevant records including those which relate to the allegations against the 4th Respondent have already been seized and kept under safe custody of the investigation agency, and that the officials, including the 4th Respondent, who have not been placed under suspension from service, had not interfered with the investigation in any manner. It is again stated that the officials who are accused of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. have been placed under suspension from service, whereas officials including the 4th Respondent have not been placed under suspension as they are involved only in a lighter offence coming under Section 201 I.P.C, and that neither any favour, nor any discrimination nor any differential treatment has been shown towards the 4th Respondent Government Pleader Mr. Alexander Thomas brought to our notice the fact that the 4th Respondent is an Indian Police Service Officer governed by the All India Service Rules and that it is the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and not the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules which is applicable to the 4th Respondent. Alexander Thomas brought to our notice the fact that the 4th Respondent is an Indian Police Service Officer governed by the All India Service Rules and that it is the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and not the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules which is applicable to the 4th Respondent. He invited our attention to Rule 3(3) of Part II of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and submitted that it is the discretion of the competent authority to decide whether or not such an officer is to be placed under suspension from service, pending criminal investigation or charge. It is also not the case of the public spirited Appellant that he is in any way related to the victims of the firing incident or has something to do with the incident. 6. The first Respondent State has filed a statement on 13th August 1999, signed by Sri K. Mukundan, Deputy Secretary to Government, General Administration (Special) Department, wherein it is pointed out that the prayer of the Appellant is for a direction to the State Government to place the 4th Respondent under suspension from service on the ground that he is an accused in Crime No. 268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station and that the main contention of the Appellant is that while all other officials involved in the above case have been suspended from service, the 4th Respondent alone is allowed to continue in service and the decision of the Government in not suspending the 4th Respondent from service is due to special favour conferred on that officer and that it is arbitrary and discriminatory. In this connection, referring to the statement dated 3rd July 1999 filed by the 3rd Respondent Investigating Officer, it is stated that the seventeen officers who are accused of grave offence under Section 302 I.P.C. have been suspended from service and one officer who was the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur, had retired from service prior to the registration of the case. It is stated further that three officials including the 4th Respondent have not been placed under suspension from service since only lighter offences coming under Section 201 I.P.C. are alleged against them. It is submitted further that neither favour nor discrimination nor even any differential treatment has been shown in favour of the 4th Respondent and the other two similarly placed officials. 7. It is submitted further that neither favour nor discrimination nor even any differential treatment has been shown in favour of the 4th Respondent and the other two similarly placed officials. 7. Except the bald statement that there is discrimination and favouritism shown towards the 4th Respondent, no acceptable materials have been placed before us to substantiate the said allegations. The contention of the Appellant under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules the department is bound to suspend the 4th Respondent since he is an accused of a criminal offence is untenable as the 4th Respondent is an officer borne on the cadre of the Indian Police Service, which is an All India Service and the rules applicable to him are the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. As already noticed under Rule 3(3) Part II of the All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1969, it is the discretion of the competent authority to decide whether or not such an officer is to be placed under suspension from service pending criminal Investigation or charge. In this case, as already noticed, the 4th Respondent was transferred outside Kannur district and his present posting at Kozhikode is his fourth transfer and posting after the occurrence of the incident on 25th November 1994. The Investigating Officer has stated in paragraph 6 of his statement dated 3rd July 1999 that the investigation of the case is at its very fag end and that all the relevant records, including those relating to the allegations against the 4th Respondent, have already been seized and kept under safe custody of the investigating agency. According to the Respondents, the officials involved in the case, including 4th Respondent, who have not been suspended from service, have not interfered with [the investigation in any manner. The Government Pleader brought to our notice the fact that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, by order dated 21st April 1999, in exercise of the powers under Section 306(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granted tender of pardon to the 4th Respondent herein and has found that the evidence of the 4th Respondent is necessary for the trial of the case and that he will make a full and true disclosure, etc. In view of the above, the 4th Respondent is to be a prosecution witness. 8. In view of the above, the 4th Respondent is to be a prosecution witness. 8. When the matter came up for argument on the last occasion, it was contended by Mr. Ramakumar that the 4th Respondent should be transferred out of Kozhikode district as otherwise he would interfere with the trial. We then directed the Government Pleader to get instructions from the Government as to whether the above request made on behalf of the Appellant can be granted. It is pursuant to the said direction that the first Respondent has filed the statement dated 12th August 1999. As already noticed, the investigating officer has specifically averred in his statement that the officials including the 4th Respondent, who have not been suspended from service, have not interfered with the investigation in any manner. In the statement filed by the first Respondent it is pointed out that within one week of the occurrence of die incident on 25th November 1994, the Government issued G.O. (Rt.) 9421/94/GAD, dated 1st December 1994, pursuant to which the 4th Respondent was relieved of the charge of Superintendent of Police, Kannur on 2nd December 1994 and was later posted as Commandant, M.S.P., Malappuram as per G.O. (Rt.) 227/95/GAD, dated 6th January 1995. He was relieved from that post on 2nd July 1996 and on 3rd July 1996 he took charge as Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod in pursuance of G.O. (Rt.) No. 5656/96/GAD, dated 29th June 1996. He was relieved from that post on 24th March 1997 and later he took charge as Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kozhikode pursuant to G.O. (Rt.) No. 2292/97/GAD, dated 21st March 1997. Thereafter he took charge as Commissioner of Police, Calicut City on 17th May 1999 in pursuance of G.O. (Rt.) 3686/99/GAD, dated 15th May 1999. It is stated that the above transfers and postings were effected in the interest of administration of the Police department. It is also pointed out that it is for the first time that the 4th Respondent is making a demand that the 4th Respondent should be transferred from the present post and it is submitted that the demand of the Appellant is without any merit and the Government are of the considered view that there is no necessity to transfer the 4th Respondent from the present post, and that the interest of administration requires his continuance in the present post. 9. 9. We see substance and force in the above submission. The Appellant, as noticed earlier, appears to be a businessman running a bakery and is in no way connected with the case. When the previous postings of the 4th Respondent was more closer to Kannur than the present one, the Appellant has not made any demand before the authorities either to suspend or to transfer the officer. He has no case that the 4th Respondent has, in any manner, interfered with the criminal proceedings. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer has stated that the 4th Respondent has Act interfered with the investigation in any manner. In tine above circumstances, we find that there is no justification to accede to the request of the Appellant. It has been held by this Court and also by the Supreme Court by a catena of decisions that transfer and posting of Government officials are within the sole managerial and administrative prerogative of the Government and Courts shall not interfere with such transfers and postings, unless a case is made out otherwise. The contention of the Appellant that the 4th Respondent should be suspended from service in view of his involvement in a criminal case is also bereft of any merit. As already noticed, it is the discretion of the competent authority to decide as to whether or not to suspend an officer pending criminal proceedings. In view of the above, we see no merit in this Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. *A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series) JUDGMENT AR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard Mr.K. Ramakumar for the appellant and Government Pleader Mr.Alexander Thomas for the respondents. 2. This writ appeal is against dismissal of O.P.No.5873 of 1999 filed by the appellant, K. Madhusoodanan, who is a businessman running a bakery at Kozhikode, and a public spirited person, aggrieved at the inaction to proceed against the 4th respondent's involvement in Koothuparamba Police firing. According to the appellant, Crime No.268 of 1997 of Koothuparamba Police Station has been registered against various police officers including the 4th respondent, who figures as one of the prominent accused in the case. The case relates to the death of Five persons in police firing on 25th November, 1994. The 4th respondent was examined as witness No.1 before the Commission appointed by the Government for enquiring into the firing. The case relates to the death of Five persons in police firing on 25th November, 1994. The 4th respondent was examined as witness No.1 before the Commission appointed by the Government for enquiring into the firing. The Commission has submitted his report. It is submitted by the appellant that soon after the registration of the crime, Government placed on suspension most of the police officials involved in the case, but the 4th respondent alone was left out. According to the appellant, the reason for the same is that he was only in favour with the political leadership of the party in power and managed himself to be spared from the disciplinary action, and, therefore, he continues to be in important position of Superintendent of Police. It is submitted that there is no reason at all to confer a special favour on one of the police officers alone while all the rest, including ordinary police constables, who have no clout to command, have been placed under suspension. It is also alleged that there has been mass transfers of police constables in relation to Koothuparamba incident. In the circumstances, the appellant filed the writ petition for a mandamus commanding the Government and the Director General of Police to take action against the 4th respondent also as there is no reason for making any distinction between him and the ordinary police constables involved in the case. The Writ Petition was dismissed by C.S. Rajan, J. by judgment dated 8th March, 1999, which reads thus: "The petitioner prays for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to put the 4th respondent under suspension till the trial in Crime No.268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police station is over. There is a further prayer for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and incorporate offences under S.465 and 177A of IPC against the 4th respondent, who is the 19th accused in Crime No.268/97. Regarding the first prayer, it is for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It will be improper for this court to take any action under R.10 of the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. Regarding the 2nd prayer, it is improper for this court to take a decision unless this court is satisfied that the 4th respondent is prima facie guilty under the above sections. The original petition is dismissed." 3. Regarding the 2nd prayer, it is improper for this court to take a decision unless this court is satisfied that the 4th respondent is prima facie guilty under the above sections. The original petition is dismissed." 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this writ appeal. Mr.Ramakumar, counsel for the appellant submitted that the prayer was to consider the suspension of the 4th respondent as he is also very much involved as the accused in Crime No.268 of 1997, which is a matter which should have been considered by the Government and that the rejection of the writ application is, therefore, improper. He would further submit that there cannot be any discrimination between ordinary police constables and officers in the matter of suspension in relation to the same case and that while all others involved in the crime have been suspended, one person alone is allowed to continue in service, which amounts to gross abuse of power by the Government, of placing employees under suspension. Mr.Ramakumar further submitted that continuing a superior officer in service, while he is an accused in a case, will be contrary to public interest, and that the learned Judge has failed to exercise his powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and went wrong indismissing the original petition. 4. In the writ appeal, the Government was directed to produce the entire records and to file a statement on behalf of the State. A statement was filed on 3rd July, 1999 by one Mr.Sekharan Miniyodan, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur Range, Kannur, wherein it is stated that the investigation did not reveal any offence either under S.465 or under S.477(A) IPC on the part of the 4th respondent and hence those sections had not been put against him. The details regarding the accused officials who were placed under suspension from service and who were found to have committed serious offences including offence under S.302 I.P.C have also been furnished. The details are as follows: "1. A2- Sri. Abdul Hakkim Bathery, Deputy Supdt. of Police, Kannur (Now retired). 2. A3- Sri.T. T. Antony, Deputy Collector (Housing), Kannur. 3. A4- Sri.P. Damodaran, PC 2617, Kannur Town PS. 4. A5- Sri.V. K. Abdul Salam, PC 2775, Kannur Town PS. 5. A6- Sri. K. Balachandran, PC 3998, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 6. A7- Sri.P. K. Luckose, PC 3967, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 7. Abdul Hakkim Bathery, Deputy Supdt. of Police, Kannur (Now retired). 2. A3- Sri.T. T. Antony, Deputy Collector (Housing), Kannur. 3. A4- Sri.P. Damodaran, PC 2617, Kannur Town PS. 4. A5- Sri.V. K. Abdul Salam, PC 2775, Kannur Town PS. 5. A6- Sri. K. Balachandran, PC 3998, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 6. A7- Sri.P. K. Luckose, PC 3967, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 7. A8- Sri.K.Lakshmanan, PC 3547, Armed Reserve, Kannur (Now Village,Extension Officer, Naduvil). 8. A9- Sri.P. M. Ammed, PC 2755, KAP 4 Bn. Mangattuparamba (Now PC 1121 of Wayanad District). 9. A10-Sri Ravada A Chandrasekhar, Assistant Supdt. of Police, Thalassery (Now Supdt. of Police). 10. A11-Sri.T. V. Sasidharan, HC 3891, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 11. A12-Sri.K. V. Rajan, PC 3940, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 12. A13-Sri. K. Sahadevan, P.C.3960, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 13. A14-Sri. N. K. Premnath, PC.3941, Armed Reserve, Kannur'. 14. A15-Sri. Stanly Joseph, PC 3965, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 15. A16-Sri. P. Suresh, PC 4010, Armed Reserve, Kannur. 16. A17-Sri. P. V. Chandran, PC 4025; Armed Reserve, Kannur. 17. A18-Sri.E. Premdas, PC 3279, Armed Reserve, Kannur." It is stated further that accused Nos. 2, 6 and 7, viz. M/s.Abdul Hakkim Bathery, K. Balachandran and P.K. Luckose were placed under suspension prior to the registration of the case for certain allegations connected with Kuthuparamba police firing incident, and that accused No.20 Sri.C. Govindan Nambiar, who was the then Additional District Magistrate, Kannur, retired from service prior to the registration of the case. It is also stated that the first accused is Sri.M.V.Raghavan, who was formerly a minister of the State. In para.5 of the statement details regarding the accused officials who have not been placed under suspension from service, have been furnished. According to the State, they have committed only lighter offences, which comes under S.201 I.P.C only. The said officials are: A19- Sri.K. Padmakumar, Supdt. of Police, Kannur. (Now Commissioner of Police, Calicut City). A21- Sri.M. Radhakrishnan Nair, C.I. of Police, Kuthuparamba, (Now Dy. Sp.Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Idukki) A22- Sri K.P. Philip, C.I. of Police, Thalassery (Now Dy.Sp., Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Wayanad). 5. It is submitted by Government Pleader Mr.Alexander Thomas that there was no need to place the 4th respondent, who is accused No. 19 in the case, under suspension and that he was transferred outside the district soon after the incident in question and has been serving outside Kannur District since then. 5. It is submitted by Government Pleader Mr.Alexander Thomas that there was no need to place the 4th respondent, who is accused No. 19 in the case, under suspension and that he was transferred outside the district soon after the incident in question and has been serving outside Kannur District since then. It is further submitted that the investigation is at its fag end and the relevant records including those which relate to the allegations against the 4th respondent have already been seized and kept under safe custody of the investigation agency, and that the officials, including the 4th respondent, who have not been placed under suspension from service, had not interfered with the investigation in any manner. It is again stated that the officials who are accused of offence under S.302 I.P.C. have been placed under suspension from service, whereas officials including the 4th respondent have not been placed under suspension as they are involved only in a lighter offence coming under S.201 IPC and that neither any favour, nor any discrimination nor any differential treatment has been shown towards the 4th respondent. Government Pleader Mr.Alexander Thomas brought to our notice the fact that the 4th respondent is an Indian Police Service Officer governed by the All India Service Rules and that it is the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and not the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules which is applicable to the 4th respondent. He invited our attention to R.3(3) of Part II of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and submitted that it is the discretion of the competent authority to decide whether or not such an officer is to be placed under suspension from service, pending criminal investigation or charge. It is also not the case of the public spirited appellant that he is in any way related to the victims of the firing incident or has something to do with the incident. 6. The first respondent State has filed a statement on 13th August, 1999, signed by Sri. It is also not the case of the public spirited appellant that he is in any way related to the victims of the firing incident or has something to do with the incident. 6. The first respondent State has filed a statement on 13th August, 1999, signed by Sri. K.Mukundan, Deputy Secretary to Government, General Administration (Special) Department, wherein it is pointed out that the prayer of the appellant is for a direction to the State Government to place the 4th respondent under suspension from service on the ground that he is an accused in Crime No.268/97 of Kuthuparamba Police Station and that the main contention of the appellant is that while all other officials involved in the above case have been suspended from service, the 4th respondent alone is allowed to continue in service and the decision of the Government in not suspending the 4th respondent from service is due to special favour conferred on that officer and that it is arbitrary and discriminatory. In this connection, referring to the statement dated 3-7-1999 filed by the 3rd respondent Investigating Officer, it is stated that the seventeen officers who are accused of grave offence under S.302 IPC have been suspended from service and one officer who was the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur, had retired from service prior to the registration of the case. It is stated further that three officials including the 4th respondent have not been placed under suspension from service since only lighter offences coming under S.201 IPC are alleged against them. It is submitted further that neither favour nor discrimination nor even any differential treatment has been shown in favour of the 4th respondent and the other two similarly placed officials. 7. Except the bald statement that there is discrimination and favouritism shown towards the 4th respondent, no acceptable materials have been placed before us to substantiate the said allegations. The contention of the appellant under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules the department is bound to suspend the 4th respondent since he is an accused of a criminal offence is untenable as the 4th respondent is an officer borne on the cadre of the Indian Police Service, which is an All India Service and the rules applicable to him are the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. As already noticed under R.3(3) Part II of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, it is the discretion of the competent authority to decide whether or not such an officer is to be placed under suspension from service pending criminal investigation or charge. In this case, as already noticed, the 4th respondent was transferred outside Kannur district and his present posting at Kozhikode is his fourth transfer and posting after occurrence of the incident on 25-11-1994. The Investigating Officer has stated in para.6 of his statement dated 3-7-1999 that the investigation of the case is at its very fag end and that all the relevant records, including those relating to the allegations against the 4th respondent, have already been seized and kept under safe custody of the investigating agency. According to the respondents, the officials involved in the case, including 4th respondent, who have not been suspended from service, have not interfered with the investigation in any manner. The Government Pleader brought to our notice the fact that Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, by order dated 21-4-1999, in exercise of the powers under S.306(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granted tender of pardon to the 4th respondent herein and has found that the evidence of the 4th respondent is necessary for the trial of the case and that he will make a full and true disclosure, etc. In view of the above, the 4th respondent is to be a prosecution witness. 8. When the matter came up for argument on the last occasion, it was contended by Mr.Ramakumar that the 4th respondent should be transferred out of Kozhikode district as otherwise he would interfere with the trial. We then directed the Government Pleader to get instructions from Government as to whether the above request made on behalf of the appellant can be granted. It is pursuant to the said direction that the first respondent has filed the statement dated 12th August, 1999. As already noticed, the investigating officer has specifically averred in his statement that the officials including the 4th respondent, who have not been suspended from service, have not interfered with the investigation in any manner. It is pursuant to the said direction that the first respondent has filed the statement dated 12th August, 1999. As already noticed, the investigating officer has specifically averred in his statement that the officials including the 4th respondent, who have not been suspended from service, have not interfered with the investigation in any manner. In the statement filed by the first respondent it is pointed out that within one week of the occurrence of the incident on 25-11-1994, the Government issued G.O.(Rt) 9421/94/GAD dated 1-12-1994, pursuant to which the 4th respondent was relieved of the charge of Superintendent of Police, Kannur on 2-12-1994 and was later posted as Commandant, M.S.P., Malappuram as per G.O.(Rt) 227/95/GAD dated 6-1-1995. He was relieved from that post on 2-7-1996 and on 3-7-1996 he took charge as Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod in pursuance of G.O.(Rt.)No. 5656/96/GAD dated 29-6-1996. He was relieved from that post on 24-3-1997 and later he took charge as Superintendent of Police (Rural) Kozhikode pursuant to G.O.(Rt) No.2292/97/GAD dated 21-3-1997. Thereafter he took charge as Commissioner of Police, Calicut City on 17-5-1999 in pursuance of G.O.(Rt.) 3686/99/GAD dated 15-5-1999. It is stated that the above transfers and postings were effected in the interest of administration of the police department. It is also pointed out that it is for the first time that the 4th respondent is making a demand that the 4th respondent should be transferred from the present post and it is submitted that the demand of the appellant is without any merit and the Government are of the considered view that there is no necessity to transfer the 4th respondent from the post, and that the interest of administration requires his continuance in the present post. 9. We see substance and force in the above submission. The appellant, as noticed earlier, appears to be a businessman running a bakery and is in no way connected with the case. When the previous postings of the 4th respondent was more closer to Kannur than the present one, the appellant has not made any demand before the authorities either to suspend or to transfer the officer. He has no case that the 4th respondent has, in any manner, interfered with the criminal proceedings. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer has stated that the 4th respondent has not interfered with the investigation in any manner. He has no case that the 4th respondent has, in any manner, interfered with the criminal proceedings. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer has stated that the 4th respondent has not interfered with the investigation in any manner. In the above circumstances, we find that there is no justification to accede to the request of the appellant. It has been held by this court and also by the Supreme Court by a catena of decisions that transfer and posting of Government officials are within the sole managerial and administrative prerogative of the Government and Courts shall not interfere with such transfers and postings unless a case is made out otherwise. The contention of the appellant that the 4th respondent should be suspended from service in view of his involvement in a criminal case is also bereft of any merit. As already noticed, it is the discretion of the competent authority to decide as to whether or not to suspend an officer pending criminal proceedings. In view of the above, we see no merit in this Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.