Disposed

Delson P.Davis v. Trichur District Co=-Op. Hospital

Kerala HC7 Oct 2008WP(C)/28726/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Secretary challenged his suspension order issued by the Administrative Committee of a Cooperative Hospital. The Court quashed the challenge to the order but directed the release of subsistence allowance and completion of disciplinary proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Challenge to suspension order repelled; subsistence allowance to be released; disciplinary proceedings to be concluded within three months.

Delson P.Davis Vs Trichur District Co=-Op. Hospital — Company and Corporate | 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 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 28726 of 2008(T)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

DELSON P. DAVIS, SECRETARY (UNDER SUSPENSION), TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL LTD.R.306, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN, ADV. SRI. T.R. HARIKUMAR.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL LTD.R-306, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE.

¶14

2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL LTD, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENOR.

¶15

ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN FOR R1 & R2.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C). NO.28726/2008-T:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT ENDED IN 31/03/2005, DTD. 15/10/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT ENDED IN 31/03/2006 DTD. 31/10/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT ENDED IN 31/03/2007 DTD. 31/11/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C). NO. 10711/2008 DTD. 13/06/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C). NO. 24774/2008 DTD. 19/09/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 22/09/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 25/08/2008.

¶21

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE MINUTES DTD. 19/03/2008.

¶22

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ASSIGNING THE DUTY ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE OFFICE STAFF WITH EFFECT FROM 01/05/2008.

¶23

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 08/09/2008.

¶24

EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 09/09/2008.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:

¶26

EXT.R3.A: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE DOOR LEADING TO THE CABIN OF THE SECRETARY WITH AN ADDITIONAL LOCK.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

prv.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(C).No.28726 of 2008-T

¶33

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

¶34

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2008.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

1.The first respondent, a co-operative society is now administered through the second respondent administrative committee. Petitioner, the Secretary of that society, challenges Ext.P6, an order placing him under suspension. The ground of challenge is that the impugned order has been issued by the Convenor of the administrative committee misusing the position in the backdrop of an inspection into the working of the society, following Ext.P5 order of this Court. It is stated that such inspection by the District Medical Officer, Thrissur is the immediate provocation for the order of suspension. The power of the committee, it is contended, is only to administer and not to enjoy all the powers of

¶37

WP(C)28726/08 -: 2 :-

¶38

an elected committee. It is urged that Ext.P6 contains allegations relating to actions which were taken at a time when the elected committee was in office and no complaint was filed at that point of time against the petitioner and the very fact that Ext.P7 was issued by the administrator is, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that until the inspection by the DMO following Ext.P5 order, the administrator had no reason to place the petitioner under suspension.

¶39

2.Various matters in relation to the first respondent society, including the appointment of administrative committee and allied matters, are pending consideration before this Court. It was in the course of consideration of those matters that Exts.P4 and P5 were issued. All that was done as per Ext.P5 was to direct the DMO, Thrissur to place a report regarding matters stated therein. Such a report is already placed before this Court.

¶40

WP(C)28726/08 -: 3 :-

¶41

3.The issuance of Ext.P6 follows Ext.P5. But that does not, by itself, mean that it is appropriate for this Court to conclude at this point of time that it is merely the aftermath of the inspection conducted by the DMO and the disclosure of certain information to the DMO by the petitioner, which he states he did. Ext.P6 contains various allegations. They may be even as regards certain events and occurrences which happened much before the administrative committee came into office. It may be that the administrator had issued Ext.P7, which is stated to be one issued to aid the petitioner's pursuit for an employment abroad. The materials on record are insufficient to conclude that there is no foundation on facts on the basis of which, Ext.P6 has been issued and that it is actuated only by malice and malafides. Having regard to the nature of the allegations in Ext.P6, whatever be the defence of the petitioner, it is not appropriate for this Court to foreclose any disciplinary proceedings against him, as indicated in Ext.P6, in as much as the

¶42

WP(C)28726/08

¶43

-: 4 :-

¶44

administrator or administrative committee is well within bounds to place an employee, including the Secretary, under suspension and also to initiate disciplinary proceedings. It may also be inappropriate to express anything on the merits of the allegations in Ext.P6, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a delinquent who, going by Ext.P6, is likely to face notice to show cause against the allegations.

¶45

In the aforesaid circumstances, within the realm of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, I deem it unnecessary for this Court to step in and quash Ext.P6. However, if the proceedings against the petitioner are in the anvil, that has to be concluded without delay. Hence, while repelling the challenge to Ext.P6, this writ petition is ordered directing that subsistence allowance in terms of law shall be duly released to the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings, if any, shall be concluded within an outer limit of three months from the date of

¶46

WP(C)28726/08 -: 5 :-

¶47

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶49

Sha/061008

Delson P.Davis v. Trichur District Co=-Op. Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delson P.Davis v. Trichur District Co=-Op. Hospital

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

A.P.Jalaja Vs Secretary,Nedumangadu Housing Co-Op.Soci

P.P.Narayani Vs State of Kerala

Paul Mathew Vs Bank of Baroda

Josekutty V.J Vs K.P.S.C

Jacob Manuel Vs the Tamilnadu Merchantile Bank Ltd.

Subimol Vs Chief Manager, Sbt