Dismissed

K.Sreedharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2008OP/14864/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, a co-operative bank employee dismissed for financial misconduct, challenged the dismissal and prayed for conversion to discharge to avail retirement benefits. Court dismissed writ but directed respondent to consider a representation for conversion.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the bank to consider a representation from the petitioner for converting the dismissal into discharge or termination without punishment if submitted, without opening fresh litigation.

K.Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929

¶5

OP.No. 14864 of 1999(T)

¶6

--------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-----------------

¶9

K.SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT KUNDRANI VEEDU, KARAKURUSSI P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

---------------------

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD.

¶15

3. THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NO. P1025, KARAKURISSI P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR

¶17

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER ON CMP NO. 23983/1999 IN OP NO. 14864/1999.

¶19

DISMISSED

¶20

12/02/2008. SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R2 DT. 28/12/97. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO. 4325/98 DT. 5/3/98.

¶24

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER BY the R2 DT. 12/5/98.

¶25

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APEAL DT. 18/07/98.

¶26

EXT.P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO. 17476/98 DT. 11/09/98.

¶27

EXT.P6. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DT. 2/11/98.

¶28

EXT.P7. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R1 IN THE APPEAL DT. 7/1/99.

¶29

EXT.P8. COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT DT. 2/06/97.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶31

EXT.R3A. COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE R3 DATED NIL.

¶32

True copy

¶33

tga

¶34

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶35

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶36

O.P.No.14864 of 1999-T

¶37

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶38

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2008.

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

1.The petitioner was employed with the third respondent, which is a co-operative bank. On account of certain allegations of financial misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Pending that, the petitioner is stated to have resigned from service. The matter was adjudicated before the Joint Registrar and the Government. It was also the case of the petitioner that before his resignation was accepted, he had withdrawn the resignation. The authorities below have concluded that the allegations against the petitioner, if considered in the realm of discipline, would have visited him with further consequences and that

¶41

OP14864/1999 -: 2 :-

¶42

the action ended by way of dismissal only because the petitioner had paid to the society the amounts which are allegedly appropriated by him. Having heard learned counsel for parties, I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the proceedings before the statutory authorities. The findings therein are reasonable and available on the file. They cannot be treated as perverse warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. To that extent, the writ petition fails.

¶43

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner, however stated that as of now, the petitioner has been placed in a precarious situation left with no financial support. He also sought for indulgence of this Court to have the order of dismissal to be converted as one of discharge to aid the petitioner to draw whatever the retiral benefits which would be available.

¶44

3.In the result, while affirming the impugned

¶45

OP14864/1999 -: 3 :- proceedings, it is directed that if the petitioner makes any representation for such conversion of the punishment imposed, notwithstanding the finality attained by the impugned orders, the third respondent will be at liberty to look into such representation and take any decision which it deems appropriate. It is further clarified that this direction shall not inure to the petitioner opening up a fresh round of litigation on that issue. The original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶46

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/

¶47

OP14864/1999

¶48

-: 4 :-

¶49

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.

¶50

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶51

O.P.No.14864 of 1999-T

¶52

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

Dated: 12th February, 2008.

K.Sreedharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sreedharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Latha Lalan Vs Johney Sebastian

Sundaran Karuvankandiyil Vs Pushparajan

P.G.Sreenivasan Vs the Secretary,Malappuram District

K.C.Sreelal Vs Mohan Abraham

K.v.Balachandran Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Abraham Vs Arbitration & Executive Inspector