Published Nov 11, 2026 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Nov 11, 2026 | 8:00 AM
The disappearance took place during the movement of the Kerala IRB-1 contingent after the completion of election duty in Madhya Pradesh.
Synopsis: In November 2023, a loaded 9mm service pistol with 20 rounds of ammunition vanished from a train carrying Kerala Police personnel on election duty in Madhya Pradesh. The disappearance triggered a major controversy, exposed serious lapses in weapon security and brought 10 police personnel, including senior officers, under the scanner. Nearly three years later, the departmental proceedings have ended with warnings, a minor penalty and multiple exonerations. But the one question that prompted the entire inquiry remains unanswered.
In November 2023, a loaded service pistol with 20 live rounds disappeared from a train carrying Kerala Police personnel on interstate election duty. Ten officers, including senior personnel, were brought under the scanner.
The state Home Department has now wrapped up the departmental proceedings, with all 10 officers escaping the charges or facing only relatively minor punishment.
Yet, nearly three years after the incident, the biggest mystery remains unsolved: where did the 9mm pistol and its ammunition go?
The disappearance took place during the movement of the Kerala India Reserve Battalion-1 (IRB-1) contingent after the completion of the first phase of election duty in Madhya Pradesh.
A complaint was lodged with the railway station authorities, and the Bina Malkhedi Government Railway Police registered an FIR.
The incident caused considerable embarrassment to the Kerala Police, with the disappearance of a service weapon and live ammunition exposing potential vulnerabilities in the force’s weapon-handling and security protocols.
The mystery deepened when a police officer claimed to have seen a fellow officer throwing an object out of the moving train.
The subsequent departmental inquiry, ordered by the state Home Department in February 2024, brought 10 officers under scrutiny. The allegations went beyond the disappearance of the weapon itself. Investigators examined why adequate armed sentries and security posts had not been ensured in coaches 9 and 10, despite the train passing through Naxal-affected areas.
There were also questions over compliance with instructions on the custody of firearms. Instead of keeping weapons and ammunition at a designated central location, officers allegedly allowed personnel to retain them individually. The inquiry also looked into reports of alcohol consumption by police personnel during the journey and the alleged failure to report such indiscipline to senior officers.
The incident dates back to 20 November 2023, when a police contingent from Keralam was travelling by train from Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh to Hanumangarh in Rajasthan after completing its election-related assignment in the first phase of the Madhya Pradesh Assembly elections.
The contingent, comprising 10 companies, had been deployed to Madhya Pradesh in accordance with an order issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on 23 October 2023.
C.P. Ajith Kumar, Commandant of the 3rd Battalion of the Kerala Armed Police (KAP), was appointed Ad-hoc Commandant to lead the contingent. Deputy Commandant S Shibu and Assistant Commandant Starmon R Pillai were entrusted with supervisory responsibilities.
The force included 10 Armed Police Inspectors (APIs) functioning as Company Commanders, 30 Armed Police Sub-Inspectors and Armed Police Assistant Sub-Inspectors (APSI/APASI), 800 Head Constables and Police Constables, and 40 Constables.
The personnel left Keralam by a special train on 5 November 2023, and reached Jabalpur on 8 November. After completing their responsibilities during the first phase of the elections, they began their onward journey to Rajasthan at approximately 11.30 pm on 19 November, travelling in a special sleeper train to Hanumangarh.
It was during this journey that the weapon went missing.
At around 6.30 am on 20 November, when the train reached Narioli railway station in Madhya Pradesh, a bag belonging to Visakh V, an APASI attached to the India Reserve Battalion, was found missing.
The bag had been kept on a berth in the compartment allotted to the KL IRB-1 Company. It contained a 9mm service pistol bearing butt number 14 and 20 rounds of ammunition.
The mystery took a further twist when an officer, Padmakumar, alleged that he had seen a fellow policeman (Rajesh) throwing an object out of the moving train during the journey. However, the allegation remained uncorroborated, with no independent witness or conclusive evidence to establish that Rajesh had taken or disposed of the missing bag.
The disappearance was reported to the station master at Narioli, and an FIR was subsequently registered at the Bina-Malkhedi Railway Police Station in Madhya Pradesh.
Also Read: BLM financial fraud: Sources say Premkumar could leave the country as ED prepares to question him
The departmental proceedings identified failures on several fronts, including inadequate deployment of sentries in coaches 9 and 10, where the officers and other personnel were travelling.
There was also a failure to ascertain which personnel were carrying weapons and ammunition individually, despite instructions that such items should be deposited and kept in a centralised arrangement.
The inquiry further flagged alleged indiscipline among the personnel, including the consumption of alcohol during the train journey. The failure to report such conduct to senior officers was also treated as a serious lapse.
The findings pointed to deficiencies not only in the immediate arrangements for safeguarding the missing weapon but also in the supervisory responsibilities of officers entrusted with managing the contingent.
The government viewed the lapses as serious dereliction of duty, particularly as the incident involved the loss of a firearm and ammunition while police personnel were travelling on an official assignment. The conduct of the personnel was also considered damaging to the reputation of the police force.
Also Read: 80th anniversary special of Punnapra-Vayalar struggle turns contentious, reopens old wounds in Left
Following the incident, departmental action was initiated against several officers, including the commandant and members of the supervisory team.
A joint departmental inquiry was ordered against Armed Police Sub-Inspector V.P. Jayachandran, Assistant Platoon Assistant Sub-Inspector Sudheesh and APASI Visakh. An officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry.
The government subsequently examined the explanations submitted by the officials in response to preliminary notices.
It decided to continue disciplinary proceedings against C.P. Ajith Kumar, S Shibu, Starmon R Pillai, Armed Police Inspector Sharafudheen Moopan, Armed Police Inspector Rajesh D, Armed Police Sub-Inspectors B Padmakumar, Biju G, Jayachandran VP, Sudheesh and Visakh.
However, the government adopted different approaches depending on the nature of the allegations and the findings against individual officers.
Ajith Kumar, Shibu and Starmon Pillai were issued formal warnings for supervisory failures. The government decided to continue the disciplinary proceedings against Visakh, whose service pistol and ammunition had gone missing during the journey.
The proceedings against Deputy Commandant Shibu were subsequently concluded with a formal warning.
Also Read: Abhirami, Abhirami! Los Angeles Mayor Nithya Raman’s link to Malayalam cinema
The government also examined the departmental inquiry report and supporting documents relating to four other personnel: Sharafudheen, a retired Armed Police Inspector; Jayachandran; Sudheesh; and Biju.
The inquiry found that Sharafudheen had committed lapses and failed to exercise the required diligence.
However, considering that he had retired from service on 31 May 2024, the government decided to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against him, taking a lenient view.
The allegations against Sudheesh and Biju, meanwhile, could not be established during the departmental inquiry. Both were consequently exonerated.
In a further stage of the disciplinary process, show-cause notices were issued to C.P. Ajith Kumar, Starmon R Pillai, Rajesh D, B Padmakumar and Visakh, seeking their explanations.
After examining the replies, the government concluded the disciplinary proceedings against Ajith Kumar and Starmon Pillai by issuing formal warnings. The earlier warning against Shibu was also retained.
The government decided to withhold one annual increment of Visakh with cumulative effect. Unlike a temporary withholding of an increment, a penalty with cumulative effect carries forward its impact on the officer’s future pay progression.
The cases involving Rajesh D and B Padmakumar have taken a different course. After considering their requests, the government ordered that both officers be given an opportunity for a hearing before further decisions are taken.
Also Read: ED registers PMLA case over failed Messi event in Kochi, probes alleged fund diversion
On 6 November, nearly three years after the incident, the two officers facing disciplinary proceedings in the case got exonerated. The state Home Department, after examining their explanations and the findings of the departmental inquiry, has found grounds to drop further action against them, bringing a fresh turn to a case that had triggered a major controversy within the police force.
The two officers, Padmakumar and Rajesh D, put forward detailed arguments during separate personal hearings before officials of the Home Department.
While Padmakumar challenged allegations that he had delayed reporting his suspicion about the missing weapon and given contradictory statements, Rajesh questioned the legality of an additional charge memo issued against him, besides alleging serious procedural lapses and bias in the inquiry.
Padmakumar argued that a departmental inquiry conducted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, had already established that the allegations of consuming alcohol and disobeying instructions from superiors on the safe custody of arms and ammunition were not substantiated.
The remaining charges against him related to his failure to report an incident he claimed to have witnessed around 12.30 am on 20 November 2023, until an ad-hoc meeting at 8.30 pm, and allegedly creating confusion among personnel through inconsistent statements about seeing someone throw an object from the train.
Explaining the delay, Padmakumar cited longstanding health problems, including severe diabetes, prostate-related ailments, hypertension and high cholesterol. He said that after completing duty on 19 November, he was travelling from Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh towards Hanumangarh in Rajasthan when he noticed Assistant Police Inspector Rajesh near a train door, apparently throwing something outside.
Also Read: Kerala Police say private videos of 12 women recovered from phone of doctor accused of rape
He claimed that physical exhaustion prevented him from confronting Rajesh at the time. He returned to his berth after using the restroom and went to sleep. At around 6.30 am, he learnt that Assistant Platoon Sub-Inspector Vishakh’s bag was missing. However, he said he was too unwell to pursue the matter and did not initially suspect Rajesh. Padmakumar said his suspicion arose only around 6 pm, when he recalled the incident near the train door.
He attributed discrepancies in his initial statement to mental distress and alleged that he had signed a document prepared by a police writer without properly reading it. He sought complete exoneration, maintaining that he had come forward in the interest of justice despite the personal and professional consequences.
Rajesh, meanwhile, challenged an additional charge accusing him of throwing the bag, arguing that it had been issued by the inquiry officer without government approval. Citing Supreme Court rulings in Union of India vs B.V. Gopinath (2014) and State of Tamil Nadu vs Promod Kumar (2018), he contended that an unauthorised charge memo was legally unsustainable.
He also challenged the evidence against him, pointing out that he was travelling in the fifth coupe of coach number nine, while Vishakh was in the first and Ajith Kumar in the second. Padmakumar was travelling in the fourth coupe. Rajesh argued that there was no independent witness to establish that he had entered Vishakh’s compartment, taken the bag or thrown it out of the train. Padmakumar’s testimony, he said, remained uncorroborated by other witnesses.
Rajesh further alleged procedural bias and argued that the inquiry had failed to examine the lapses of the officers responsible for centralised weapon storage.
The Home Department’s assessment has now paved the way for dropping further disciplinary proceedings against both officers.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
