Allowed

P.P.Sethumadavan v. Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Kerala HC5 Apr 2010WP(C)/11115/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged disciplinary actions resulting in pension reduction while they were retired. The court found the respondent failed to prove a valid enquiry was held or that the report was served. The impugned order quashed proceedings but directed completion within one month if the report is produced.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed. Respondents directed to complete proceedings and serve enquiry report within one month; otherwise disburse retirement benefits.

P.P.Sethumadavan Vs Kerala Khadi & Village… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 11115 of 2006(W) ------------------------PETITIONER(S): --------------P.P.SETHUMADAVAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMA KURUP, RETIRED JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, "JAYASREE", C.H.NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, P.O.MUNDUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶5

BY ADV. MR.JACOB ABRAHAM

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶7

KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VANCHIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35.

¶8

BY MR.V.V.JOSHI, STANDING COUNSEL ADV. MR.K.P.HARISH

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASE WP(C) NO.11122 OF 2006. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

WP(C) NO.11115 of 2006

¶11

A P P E N D I X

¶12

PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT :-

¶13

1.	EXT.P1	: Copy of the memo of charges dated 9.9.1997 and bearing number KB7258/97/E1(B) issued by the Secretary to the petitioner
2.	EXT.P2	: Copy of the petitioner's reply dated 22.11.97 to Ext.P1
3.	EXT.P3	: Copy of the Proceedings No.KB/7258/97/E1 (B) dated 23.4.98 issued by the secretary
4.	EXT.P4	: Copy of the Proceedings No.KB/7258/97/E1 (B) dated 1.11.2001 issued by the secretary to the first respondent
5.	EXT.P5	: Copy of the memo issued to the petitioner in this regard by the enquiry officer bearing No.KB/7258/97/E1 (B) dated 22.1.1999
6.	EXT.P6	: Copy of the notice bearing No.KB/7258/97/E4 (B) dated 26.8.2005 issued by the secretary to the petitioner
7.	EXT.P7	: Copy of the proceedings bearing No.KB/7258/97/E4 (B) dated 2.9.2005 issued by the respondent

¶14

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT :-

¶15

EXT.R1(a) : Copy of the Enquiry Report dated 10.4.1998 2. EXT.R1(b) : Copy of the Vigilance Enquiry Report dated 5.6.2004 3. EXT.R1(c) : Copy of the letter dated 31.8.2005 submitted by the petitioner

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

WP(C) Nos. 11115 and 11122 of 2006 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 5th day of April 2010

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

These two writ petitions are filed by two employees of the respondent, Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board, challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against them, which resulted in imposition of punishment of reduction of Rs.100/- per month from their monthly pension, in view of the fact that pending the disciplinary proceedings the petitioners retired from service.

¶22

The main contention of the petitioners is that the disciplinary proceedings, particularly the enquiry stated to have been conducted is in violation of the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioners except Ext.P1 Charge Sheet, no other intimation has been issued to the petitioners in respect of any enquiry conducted in to the allegation of misconduct. According to the petitioners, even if there was an enquiry, petitioners have not been served with a copy of the enquiry report, which is a

¶23

WP(C) Nos.11115 & 11122 of 2006

¶24

¶25

mandatory legal formality before punishment could have been imposed on the petitioners.

¶26

A counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit have been filed. According to the repondents, Ext.R1 (A) priliminary enquiry report has been submitted, based on which only further proceedings have been initiated. But respondents have not chosen to produce the final enquiry report. In the above circumstances I passed an order on 15.03.2010 directing the respondents to produce the enquiry file relating to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. No enquiry file has been produced before me. Now the contention raised is that, files are with the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, who is conducting a vigilance enquiry in the matter. But the Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that, the information supplied to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act is that, the enquiry files are with the standing counsel for the respondents. Whatever that be, when the petitioners raise a

¶27

WP(C) Nos.11115 & 11122 of 2006 3

¶28

specific contention that no enquiry with notice and opportunity to defend themselves have been conducted against the petitioners, it is the burden of the respondent to prove that the enquiry was conducted with notice and opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves have been given to the petitioners. Despite, several chances given to the respondents, they have not been able to satisfy me that a valid disciplinary enquiry has been conducted against the petitioners. At any rate, the respondents have not been able to successfully controvert the contention of the petitioners that, they have not been supplied with a copy of the enquiry report before imposition of punishment with an opportunity to show cause against the same.

¶29

In the above circumstances the impugned orders are quashed. However, this will not stand in the way of the respondents completing the proceedings after giving copy of the enquiry report which should be one, which has been obtained after enquiries conducted with notice to the

¶30

WP(C) Nos.11115 & 11122 of 2006 4

¶31

petitioners and an opportunity to them to defend themselves. Any proceedings in that regard shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. If the respondents are unable to do so, arrears of retirement benefits due to the petitioners shall be disbursed within one month therefrom, as if, no punishment has been imposed on the petitioners. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶32

S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶33

DMB

P.P.Sethumadavan v. Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Sethumadavan v. Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

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

Simji Joseph Vs U.K.S.Chauhan

Vimala Vs T.P.Senkumar I.P.S., Managing Director

Jameela Vs T.P.Senkumar, M.D.,K.S.R.T.C. and Anr.

Rosamma Baiju Vs Mathew Kokkad

Dr.B.H.Selin Joy Vs the University of Kerala and Another

P.M.Nalini Vs State of Kerala