State Police Complaints Authority: Kerala High Court Directs Govt To Expeditiously Appoint Independent Chief Investigating Officer

The PIL filed through Advocate Praveen K Joy challenged the failure to appoint a Chief Investigating Officer in the SPCA despite clear notifications from the Government. It was contended that the recruitment of the Chief Investigation Officer had not been pursued in an effective manner since 2016 to finalise the proceedings. Senior Government Pleader V. Manu appeared in the matter for the State. 

The Court noted that in August 2021, the State was directed to speed up the reconstitution of the selection committee and finalize the selection within three weeks. However, the State sought an extension arguing that though a notification was issued, there were no eligible candidates, and therefore, the qualification/remuneration had to be revisited.

In November 2021, the Court directed the State to complete the process of selection and issue orders of appointment within a matter of 3 months. When the case was taken up in March 2022, the State apprised the Court that after revising the qualifications, a notification was issued on March 15 inviting applications to the post.

Noting that the last date for submission of the applications for scrutiny was March 31, 2022, the Court gave State 60 days from April 2022 to finalise the selection. As such, the PIL was allowed to such extent.

The matter was connected with another appeal where a single Judge's decision dismissing a plea seeking similar reliefs was challenged. In this case, the appellant had applied for the post but was rejected after shortlisting citing lack of sufficient experience. The Single Judge dismissed the plea finding that the appellant did not have investigative experience as per CrPC and IPC. Appearing through Advocate Sonu Augustine, the appellant argued that despite having all essential qualifications and experience, his application was rejected.

After perusing the notification issued by the State and the impugned order, the Court found that the Single Judge had concluded that the appellant, who has worked as an Intelligence Officer and in other posts in the Central Government, did not satisfy the experience for which he is expected to have in accordance with the notification.

"We also find that the State Government, as per the notification, desired that the incumbent in the office should have the experience to assist the authority by conducting investigation into the offences committed by the Police Officers above the rank of Superintendent of Police. Therefore, we find force in the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge. We are also of the view that the experience of the appellant in conducting the investigation of minor offences is different from the investigative experience acquired by an officer in crimes under the major penal law following the procedure contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure."

Either way, the State had issued a fresh notification altering the qualifications prescribed and this was not challenged by the appellant. Therefore, it was found that the appellant had not made out a case of any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities in the impugned judgment and it was accordingly dismissed.