Disposed

B.Radhakrishnan Nair and Another v. Kerala State Film Development Corporatio

Kerala HC4 Feb 2010WP(C)/1516/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, employees suspended by the Managing Director of KSFDCL, sought reinstatement claiming no disciplinary action was initiated. The court directed them to approach the Board of Directors with a representation, and directed the Respondent to submit it within one month.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the Board of Directors with a representation; Respondent to place the representation before the Board within one month.

B.Radhakrishnan Nair and Another Vs Kerala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 1516 of 2010(L)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. B.RADHAKRUSHNAN NAIR, FILIM CHECKER, KERALA STETE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITRANJALI STUDIO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695027,(SHIVA BHAVAN, ATHIYANNOOR, ARALUMMOODU P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶10

2. S.KANNUSWAMY ASSISTANT THEATRE MANAGER KAIRALI/SREE THEATER, KOZHIKODE, (T.C.42/23 KILIKODE HOUSE, SREEVARAHAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶11

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

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

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

¶14

1. KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHITRANJALI STUDIO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695027.

¶15

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED CHITRANJALI STUDIO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695027.

¶16

ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1&2 SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM FOR R1&2

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 09.01.2010. EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 11.01.2010 OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 19.4.1994.

¶21

TRUE COPY

¶22

P.A TO JUDGE

¶23

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶24

---------------------------------------W.P.(C) NO. 1516 OF 2010

¶25

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2010

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The first petitioner is a film checker and the 2^nd petitioner is the Assistant Theater Manager at Kairali/Sree Theater under the 1^st respondent. The allegations levelled against them are as hereunder:-On 8.1.2010 at about 17.18 hours immediately after the arrival of Train No.2624 at Changannoor Railway Station platform one lady passenger by name Smt. Rajimol, who was traveling along with the petitioners in the said train in S-6 coach complained to the duty RPF regarding the misbehavior of 1^st petitioner. Thereupon, he was detrained. When the train started the leaving that station at 17.23 hrs the 2^nd petitioner unauthorisedly pulled the alarm chain to stop the train. He was then, detrained for the offences of unauthorised chain pulling and alleged drunkenness. Both or them were sent for medical examination for drunkenness and consequently,

¶28

W.P.(C) NO. 1516 OF 2010 2

¶29

certificate of drunkenness were issued from Govt. Hospital, Chengannur. They were placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. The said order of suspension was passed on 11.1.10. The petitioners submit that even after receiving Ext.R2(a) no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against them, so far. Therefore, it is only appropriate that their claim for reinstatement after revoking the suspension be re-considered by the appropriate authority, it is submitted.

¶30

Rule 30 of the Kerala State Film Development Corporation Service Rules, deals with suspension. It does not contain any appeal provision. At the same time, Rule 29 therein provides that in case of an alleged misconduct which, prima facie, appears to be of a serious nature the Managing Director or the Board of Directors as the case may be, may place the employee concerned under suspension pending enquiry. It would definitely suggest that the Board of Directors got superior power to deal with the subject of suspension. In the absence of any specific

¶31

W.P.(C) NO. 1516 OF 2010 3

¶32

provision in the Service Rules the petitioners who are aggrieved by Ext.P1 order issued by the Managing Director can only approach the Board of Directors to seek redressel against Ext.P1. In these circumstances the petitioners are given liberty to approach the Board of Directors of the 1^st respondent with a proper representation raising grievances and contentions against Ext.P2. In case, such representations are filed by the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent shall place them before the Board of Directors of the 1^st respondent for the purpose of considering the grievances of the petitioners. On such consideration orders thereon shall be passed within a period of one month.

¶33

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶35

mns

B.Radhakrishnan Nair and Another v. Kerala State Film Development Corporatio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Radhakrishnan Nair and Another v. Kerala State Film Development Corporatio

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

C.v.Sankaran Namboothiri Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

D.Prakash Vs State of Kerala and Others

V.Ganapathi Iyer and Others Vs Travancore Devaswom Board and Othes

T.K.Vijayakumar Vs Dr.Jaithilak

K.S.Muhammad Sharieff Vs State of Kerala

V.S.Shoobi Vs the Director of Panchayath