JUDGMENT : S. MANIKUMAR, J. 1. Being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order dated 11.01.2019 in HRMP No. 8202 of 2017 passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and Ext.P3 proceedings of the District Police Chief, Ernakulam dated 02.03.2021, directing recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and to remit the same to the account of the 4th respondent, instant writ petition is filed for the following reliefs: “(a) issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records leading to Ext.P2 order dated 11.01.2019 in HRMP No. 8202/2017 of the 2nd respondent Kerala State Human Rights Commission and quash the same. (b) issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records leading to Ext.P3 order passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same.” 2. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as hereunder: The 4th respondent filed Ext.P1 complaint before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, arraying the Sub Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station, holding charge as on 19.02.2016 and the Revenue Divisional Officer as opposite parties. According to the petitioner, it is alleged in the complaint that the 4th respondent's lorry, bearing registration number KL-17-D-2437, was seized, alleging transportation of river sand, against which, 4th respondent filed W.P. (C) No. 26293 of 2015 before this Court and the writ court on 01.09.2015, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna, to check the sand, and to take action, on the basis of the report. On examination, it was found that the sand is not river sand. The Geologist reported that if the complainant pays an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as fine, the same could be returned to him. Hence, the RDO ordered to return the vehicle to him, but the opposite party did not return the vehicle saying that the case is pending before the Magistrate's Court. Again, when the complainant approached the RDO, he ordered to release the vehicle as per the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 26293 of 2015 as pendency of case before the Magistrate's Court is not a bar. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kolathur was directed to return the vehicle to the complainant and produce the ‘Kaicheetu’ before him. Petitioner has submitted that on 09.02.2016, when the complainant approached the police station for receiving the vehicle, it was found that all four wheels, tires, tubes, discs, batteries starter, tools etc. were missing from the vehicle. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kolathur was directed to return the vehicle to the complainant and produce the ‘Kaicheetu’ before him. Petitioner has submitted that on 09.02.2016, when the complainant approached the police station for receiving the vehicle, it was found that all four wheels, tires, tubes, discs, batteries starter, tools etc. were missing from the vehicle. When the complainant informed the said fact to 1st opposite party, he asked him to take the vehicle by placing new wheels and battery. The value of the vehicle was Rs. 6 lakhs and the lost parts would value Rs. 1,00,000/-. Further, the 1st opposite party threatened the complainant that he would register a crime against him for obstructing his official duty, if he is not leaving the place. The complainant again went to the station requesting to take steps for releasing the vehicle and he came to know that a false case has been registered that the parts of the vehicle was stolen. Before the Human Rights Commission it was contended that the seizure of vehicle claiming transportation of river sand and the 1st opposite party's careless action as the custodian of the vehicle were unjust and violation of human rights. The Kerala State Human Rights Commission, after obtaining a report from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, issued notice to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mr. Vishnu, who was holding office on 19.02.2016, after hearing him, passed Ext.P2 order, delegating the 4th respondent to approach the civil court, for realizing the amount for damages. However, the Commission went on to find that the 4th respondent is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the responsible police officers. It was also ordered that the amount has to be paid by the Home Department, and thereafter, the same has to be realised from the officers. Based on Ext.P2 report, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P3 order, according sanction to effect recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and remit the same to the account of the 4th respondent. 3. On 23.03.2021, we passed the following interim order: “1. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in HRMP No. 8202/17/PLP dated 11.1.2019, directing the State Police Chief to take strong action after finding out the officers, who are responsible for the carelessness in keeping the vehicle safe through departmental enquiry. 2. 3. On 23.03.2021, we passed the following interim order: “1. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission in HRMP No. 8202/17/PLP dated 11.1.2019, directing the State Police Chief to take strong action after finding out the officers, who are responsible for the carelessness in keeping the vehicle safe through departmental enquiry. 2. The District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, has passed an order dated 2.3.2021 sanctioning to effect recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and to remit the same to the complainant, before the State Human Rights Commission. Recovery will be effected from the salary for the month of March 2021. For brevity, Exhibit P3 proceedings issued by District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural dated 2.3.2021 are reproduced: 3. Assailing the correctness of the said order, Mr. Shajin S. Hameed, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that no notice was given to him before issuing the said proceedings and that petitioner is not a party before the State Human Rights Commission. According to him, no opportunity was given to him by the State Human Rights Commission to rebut the allegations made against the Police Officers with whom the custody of the vehicle was given. 4. Perusal of Exhibit P3 shows that pursuant to the order made in HRMP No. 8202/17/PLP dated 11.1.2019, three letters have been referred to by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam. Posed with a question as to whether any proceeding was initiated by the Department, pursuant to the order made in HRMP No. 8202/17/PLP dated 11.1.2019, Mr. Shajin S. Hameed, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that certain departmental proceedings have been initiated but no finding has been arrived at. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner is directed to produce the details of the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Notice by speed post to Mr. Bijumon, respondent No. 4, returnable in two weeks. Mr. Tek Chand, learned Senior Government Pleader, to take notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. He is further directed to produce the details of the proceedings initiated as well as the letters referred to in Exhibit P3 proceedings dated 2.3.2021 issued by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural. 6. Learned Senior Government Pleader is also directed to ascertain as to whether there is any preliminary enquiry was conducted by competent authority fixing responsibility on the police officers responsible for the loss/damage to the vehicle.” 4. 6. Learned Senior Government Pleader is also directed to ascertain as to whether there is any preliminary enquiry was conducted by competent authority fixing responsibility on the police officers responsible for the loss/damage to the vehicle.” 4. Subsequently, petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1 of 2021, praying to accept additional documents marked as Exts.P5 to P8. Reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit are as hereunder: “3. On 23.03.2021, when the writ petition came for admission, this Honourable Court has directed me to produce the details of the departmental proceedings initiated against me. 4. It is submitted that the Inspector General of Police, Zonal (South), Thiruvananthapuram by Order No. D1-Office 6892/2020/SZ dated 09.11.2020 has ordered an oral enquiry against me as per Rule 6 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 and authorised Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCB, Ernakulam as the enquiry officer to conduct oral enquiry. The photocopy of the Order No. D1 6892/2020/SZ dated 09.11.2020 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Zonal Office (South), Thiruvananthapuram is produced herewith and the same kindly be accepted and marked as additional document Exhibit-P5. 5. In compliance to Ext-P5 enquiry was initiated against me. The 4th respondent appeared before the enquiry officer on 11.02.2021 and has given a statement as part of the enquiry proceedings and I have cross examined the 4th respondent. The photocopy of the deposition of 4th respondent before the enquiry officer along with its English translation is produced herewith and the same may kindly be accepted and marked as additional document Exhibit-P6. During the cross examination conducted by me and the enquiry officer, the 4th respondent has stated that he had gone to the police station only after 17.02.2016, with the releasing order dated 05.02.2016. 6. While the enquiry proceedings are in progress, the State Police Chief, Kerala has issued a communication No. D6-39885/2019/PHQ dated 10.02.2021 to the Inspector General of Police, South Zone & North Zone, directing to take steps to effect recovery towards compensation to be paid to the 4th respondent herein from me and another Rs. 10,000/- each and to be paid to the account of 4th respondent herein. 10,000/- each and to be paid to the account of 4th respondent herein. The photocopy of the communication No. D6-39885/2019/PHQ dated 10.02.2021 issued by the State Police Chief, Kerala to the Inspector General of Police, South Zone and North Zone is produced herewith and the same may kindly be accepted and marked as additional document Exhibit-P7. 7. Pursuant to Ext-P7, the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Thiruvananthapuram issued a Letter No. D1/6892/2020/SZ dated 12.02.2021 to the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural directing to recover Rs. 10,000/- of the petitioner and to remit the same to the account of the 4th respondent. The photocopy of the Letter No. D1/6892/2020/SZ dated 12.02.2021 issued by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Thiruvananthapuram may kindly be accepted and marked as additional document Exhibit-P8. 8. Pursuant to Ext.P8, the District Police Chief, Ernakulam. Rural/3rd respondent has passed Ext.P3 order according sanction to effect recovery of Rs. 10,000/- from my salary and remit the same to the account of 4th respondent. 9. It is submitted that Ext.P5 to P8 documents would establish that while the oral enquiry proceedings are pending, the State Police Chief has ordered to take steps to effect recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from me and another. It is further submitted that Ext.P5 to P8 documents are very much necessary for the just decision of the case.” 5. Petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 3 of 2021, praying to accept additional document Ext.P9, which is the proceedings of the Inspector General of Police, Zonal Office (South), Thiruvananthapuram, dated 24.04.2021. Reasons assigned in the supporting affidavit are as hereunder: “3. On 23.03.2021, when the writ petition came up for admission, this Honourable Court has directed me to produce the details of the departmental proceedings initiated against me. Accordingly, I have produced additional documents Ext.P5 to P8 along with I.A. No. 1/2021. Ext.P5 is an order issued by the Inspector General of Police, Zonal Office (South), Thiruvananthapuram, ordering oral enquiry against me and Ext.P6 is the copy of deposition given by the 4th respondent before the enquiry officer. 4. Pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the Inspector General of Police, Zonal Office (South), Thiruvananthapuram vide Order No. D1-6892/2020/SZ Dated 20.04.2021 exonerated me from all charges, after perusing the PR minutes and connected documents submitted by the enquiry officer. 4. Pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the Inspector General of Police, Zonal Office (South), Thiruvananthapuram vide Order No. D1-6892/2020/SZ Dated 20.04.2021 exonerated me from all charges, after perusing the PR minutes and connected documents submitted by the enquiry officer. The photocopy of the order No. D1-6892/2020/SZ dated 20.04.2021 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Zonal Office (South), Thiruvananthapuram is produced herewith and the same may kindly be accepted and marked as additional document Exhibit-P9. 5. It is submitted that Ext.P9 document is very much essential for the just decision of the case and the same would establish the case put forward by me.” 6. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the supporting affidavits. 7. I.A. Nos. 1 and 3 are allowed. Exts.P5 to P9 are taken on record. 8. Perusal of Ext.P2 order dated 11.01.2019 in HRMP No. 8202 of 2017 passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission shows that the Commission has directed that departmental action has to be taken against those officers, who failed to keep the vehicle in safe custody, and that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has to be recovered from the officers concerned, who caused failure in the duty. 9. Based on Ext.P2 order of the Commission, the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, issued Ext.P3 Order No. H1-54797/2020/E dated 02.03.2021 extracted supra, to effect recovery from the writ petitioner. 10. Perusal of Ext.P9 proceedings of the Inspector General of Police, Zonal Office (South), Thiruvananthapuram dated 20.04.2021, which is issued pursuant to Ext.P3 order dated 02.03.2021, shows that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and that the main allegation was that the delinquent, while working at Kolathur Police Station in Malappuram District, committed dereliction of official duty, in not protecting a Tipper lorry, which was taken into Police custody, for carrying river sand. The enquiry officer found that the allegations as not proved, and accepting the same, the Inspector General of Police, Zonal Office (South), Thiruvananthapuram, passed Ext.P9 proceedings dated 20.04.2021, exonerating the writ petitioner of all the charges and thus, disposed of the disciplinary proceedings. For brevity, Ext.P9 dated 20.04.2021 is reproduced: “PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ZONAL OFFICE (SOUTH), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Present: Harshita Attaluri IPS Disciplinary action - Oral enquiry against Sri. Joby Thomas, Inspector of Police, Puthenvelikara PS, in EKM RL-Disposed - Orders issued-reg. Read: 1. For brevity, Ext.P9 dated 20.04.2021 is reproduced: “PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ZONAL OFFICE (SOUTH), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Present: Harshita Attaluri IPS Disciplinary action - Oral enquiry against Sri. Joby Thomas, Inspector of Police, Puthenvelikara PS, in EKM RL-Disposed - Orders issued-reg. Read: 1. Letter No. A2-13815/2020 NZ Dated 19.10.2020 of IGP, North Zone. 2. PHQ. Lr. No. D6/39885/2019 of PHQ. 3. Order No. D1-6892/2020/SZ dated 09.11.2020 of IGP South Zone. 4. Lr. No. 2/PR/DCB/20 Dated 02.03.2021 along with PR minutes from Dy. S.P.C. Branch, Ernakulam Rural. Order No. D1-6892/2020/SZ Dated. 20.04.2021 Based on the Special report received from the Inspector General of Police North Zone, vide letter read as 1st above, an oral enquiry was ordered against Sri. Joby Thomas, Inspector of Police, Puthenvelikara PS (former ISO of Kulathur PS Malappuram) vide order read as 3rd above, authorizing Dy S.P.C. Branch, EKM RL as the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. The allegation is that, the delinquent while working at Kolathur Police station in Malappuram District, committed dereliction in official duty by not protecting a Tipper lorry which was taken into police custody for carrying river sand. The owner of the tipper lorry submitted petition before the KSHRC alleging that the important parts of the lorry was missing and the Commission ordered to recover an amount of Rs. 30,000/ from the responsible police officers who were in charge of the police station. After the completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the PR Minutes drawn up against the delinquent vide letter read as 4th above. It was reported that the allegations against the delinquent were not proven in the enquiry. I have carefully perused the PR minutes and connected documents. I agree with the finding of the enquiry officer. I Exonerate the delinquent officer of all the charges. The disciplinary Proceedings against Sri. Joby Thomas, Inspector of Police, Puthenvelikara PS stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- 20.04.2021.” 11. Though the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, in his proceedings Ext.P3 dated 02.03.2021, has directed recovery from the salary of the writ petitioner, and thereafter, remit the same to the account of the 4th respondent, subsequently, finding that the allegations against the writ petitioner were not proved in the enquiry, vide Ext.P9 proceedings dated 20.04.2021, Inspector General of Police, Zonal Office (South), Thiruvananthapuram, disposed of the disciplinary proceedings, exonerating the petitioner of all the charges. 12. 12. In the light of the subsequent proceedings, recovery cannot be ordered from the writ petitioner, who had not committed any dereliction of duty, in not protecting a Tipper lorry, which was taken into police custody. 13. Though the petitioner has prayed to quash Ext.P2 order of the Human Rights Commission dated 11.01.2019 in HRMP No. 8202 of 2017, in the light of the subsequent events, implementing the directions in Ext.P2 order, we are not inclined to set aside the order passed by the Commission. 14. However, we are inclined to interfere with Ext.P3 order passed by District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, Ernakulam District, directing recovery. For the reasons stated supra, Ext.P3 Order No. H1-54797/2020/E dated 02.03.2021 is set aside. 15. At this juncture, Mr. Joseph Rony Jose, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submitted that the complainant has already moved the civil court for appropriate orders. Submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent is placed on record. 16. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.