Allowed

Union of India v. K.K.Sajimon

Kerala HC29 Jan 2008WP(C)/3826/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's order canceling the termination of a respondent who had been restored to his regular service, deeming it unnecessary to decide the merits given the current status.

What did the court decide?

Order of the Tribunal canceling the termination of service is upheld; freedom remains with the Management to take appropriate action if the respondent is absent without leave.

Union of India Vs K.K.Sajimon — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2007 / 17TH ASWINA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 3826 of 2004(S)

¶6

------------------------OA.857/2002 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.

¶10

2. DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT, KOCHI-682016

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.D.SURESH KUMAR, CGC

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

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

¶14

K.K. SAJIMON, ICEMAN, INTEGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT, KOCHI-682016

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.T.NIKLAVU

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

NO REPRESENTATION. DISMISSED.

¶19

Sd/- K.Bakakrishnan Nair, Judge.

¶20

9.10.2007.

¶21

Sd/- T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge.

( true copy )

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Kvs/-

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶26

¶27

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(C).No. 3826 of 2004-S.

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2008.

¶32

C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Heard Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶35

2. The respondent who was taken as an Iceman on temporary basis in the Integrated Fisheries Project in the year 1998 was later regularised. Even though probation for two years was extended for four years on account of frequent leave availed by him, the respondent's case is that he had problems in the family front like his brother's illness, father's accident etc. and therefore he was granted leave by the Management. However, even after granting leave, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and finally petitioners terminated the respondent's service on account of chronic absence, against which Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. A Single Member of the CAT allowed the

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C).No. 3826 of 2004-S.

¶38

same holding that the termination of service without holding enquiry is not permissible. Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that

¶39

the Single Bench of the CAT has no authority to decide service termination cases under Ext.P4 order issued by the Chairman of the CAT. Even if there is some force in the contention of the petitioners that the work arrangement covered by Ext.P4 does not appear to include the termination cases, we do not find that there is any need to go into this question because of the later developments. The respondent's personal problems and his leave applications were allowed atleast initially by the employer because even probation was extended by further period of two years on account of the leave granted to the respondent. On facts, the Tribunal also found that the respondent was terminated due to absence from duty. It is reported in Court that after the Tribunal's order, the respondent was reinstated in service and even now he is working on a regular basis. In these circumstances we do not find any need to decide the merits of this case because under the present position, the service of the respondent may be acceptable to the organisation. We therefore uphold the order of the Tribunal canceling the termination but leaving freedom to the Management to take

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C).No. 3826 of 2004-S.

¶42

appropriate action including dismissal if the respondent absent from duty without availing leave in accordance with the leave conditions of

¶43

service.

¶44

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶46

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶47

kvs/-

Union of India v. K.K.Sajimon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. K.K.Sajimon

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

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S.Mamma Products, Kottayam

The Commissioner,Central Excise&Customs Vs M/S.Utility Alloys (P) Ltd.

The Commissioner, Central Excise&Customs Vs M/S.Surabhi Steels (P) Ltd.

M/S.Mubarak Trading Company Vs Commr.of Income Tax

Union of India Vs R.Koppan

M/S.Zam Zam Medicals Vs Income Tax Officer,Kannur