Allowed

E.v.Appukuttan Pillai v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC8 Oct 2010WP(C)/8776/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed disciplinary orders imposing dismissal by holding that the underlying enquiries were conducted without notice or opportunity to defend. Consequently, the petitioner is deemed to have retired without punishment and is entitled to full retirement benefits with arrears to be paid within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; petitioner deemed retired without punishment; entitled to full retirement benefits and arrears to be paid within two months.

E.v.Appukuttan Pillai Vs Kerala Water Authority — 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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 8776 of 2004(T) --------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

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

¶7

E.V. APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, KURUPPANTHARA HOUSE, KUMMANAM P.O. KOTTAYAM - 35. (RETIRED HEAD CLERK, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TELLICHERRY).

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RAJASENAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION (P.H.DIVISION), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY PROJECT DIVISION (WSP), SUB DIVISION, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, INVESTIGATION, PLANNING AND DESIGN DIVISION, TELLICHERRY – 1.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 8776 of 2004(T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.KWA/HB/E6/11848/95 DATED 30/08/1995 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 08/04/1996.

¶22

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/01/1997 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27/01/1997 EXTENDING THE PETITIONER'S SUSPENSION.

¶24

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/7B/E6/11848/95 DATED 20/03/1997 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/04/1997 TO THE CHAIRMAN KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.

¶26

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/JB/E6/11848/95/VOL. II DATED 31/07/1997 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/11/1997 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN, KWA.

¶28

EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 20615/1998 DATED 26/06/2000.

¶29

EXT.P10: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.KWA/JB/E6 (B)/11848/95/VOL.III, DATED 16/12/2000. REVOKING SUSPENSION, OF THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/01/2001 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT POSTING THE PETITIONER.

¶31

EXT.P12: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KWA/JB/E6/(B)/11848/95/VOL.III DATED 13/02/2001 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.P13: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 07/03/2001 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶33

EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/11/2001 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

EXT.P15: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KWA/JB/E6/(B)/11848/95 VOL.III DATED 19/12/2001 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶35

WP(C).No. 8776 of 2004(T)

¶36

EXT.P16: COPY OF THE INCOMPLETE AND FABRICATED ENQUIRY REPORT ENCLOSED WITH EXT.P15.

¶37

EXT.P17: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 05/02/2002 TO THE EQUIRY REPORT, FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶38

EXT.P18: COPY OF THE LAST REPRESENTATION DATED 02/05/2003 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXT.P19: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/JB/E6/(B)/11848/95 VOL.IV DATED 04/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXT.P20: COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.KWA/JB/E6/(B)/11848/95. VOL.IV, DATED 05/06/2003 OF TE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXT.P21: COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 24/06/2003 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶42

EXT.P22: COPY OF THE REG. ACK. RECEIPT DATED 25/06/2003 TO EXT.P21.

¶43

EXT.P23: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/08/2003 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXT.P24: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/JB/E6(B)/11848/95 VOL.IV DATED 19/10/2003 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶45

EXT.P25: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/10/2003 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶46

EXT.P26: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶47

EXT.P27: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KWA/JB E1/196/2003 DATED 30/01/2004 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶48

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶53

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.8776 of 2004

¶54

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2010

¶55

J U D G M E N T

¶56

The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala Water Authority on 31.5.2003 as a Head Clerk. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, for certain allegations of misconduct and he was suspended from service. An enquiry was conducted and one Sri. N.R. Rajkumar was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. According to the petitioner, the enquiry conducted was a farce without giving the petitioner any notice or opportunity to defend himself and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report before the disciplinary authority namely the Managing Director. The Managing Director considered that enquiry report and by Ext.P5 order, found that the enquiry was not conducted as per rules. Therefore he directed a denovo enquiry and appointed one Sri. Venugopal as Enquiry Officer. Petitioner submits that,

¶57

W.P.(C)No.8776 of 2004

¶58

¶59

he also conducted an enquiry without hearing the petitioner and submitted a report. Accepting that enquiry report the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from the service. Petitioner challenged the same in O.P.No.20615/1998 and by Ext.P9 judgment, this court set aside the denovo enquiry holding that, after conducting one enquiry, the respondents could not have conducted a denovo enquiry setting aside that enquiry and the punishment imposed on the petitioner. But in that judgment, this court observed that, the disciplinary authority is entitled to act upon the original enquiry report in accordance with the Rules either by accepting it or disagreeing with the findings therein as provided in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which has been made applicable to the employees of the Kerala Water Authority. Pursuant thereto, disciplinary proceedings were continued on the basis of the original enquiry report. The Managing Director accepted the

¶60

W.P.(C)No.8776 of 2004

¶61

¶62

enquiry report and ultimately by Ext.P24 order imposed on the petitioner the punishment of barring of two annual increments with cumulative effect from 1.1.2001 and the period of suspension was treated as leave without allowances. Petitioner's further representation was rejected by Ext.P26 order. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P27 order has been passed for recovery of an amount of 1,56,862/- from the DCRG and retirement benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5, P15, P16, P19, P20, P24, P26 & P27 seeking the following reliefs:

¶63

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ direction or order quashing Ext. P5, P19, P20, P24, P26 & P27 as illegal and void;

¶64

(ii) declare that the entire disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner are illegal and void and that he is entitled to be treated as on duty, for the suspension period from 30.08.1995 to 14.1.2001 and that he is entitled to full salary and allowances for that period with all service benefits with 12% interest;

¶65

(iii) declare that Ext.P16 enquiry report is illegal, arbitrary and abinitio void;

¶66

(iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction to the 1^st respondent to grant his pension and other retirement benefits with 12% interest, within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶67

v) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to the 1^st respondent to grant his due

¶68

W.P.(C)No.8776 of 2004

¶69

¶70

promotions as Junior Superintendent, Divisional Accountant and other service benefits which is given to his Junior Sri. B. Sugathan during the petitioner's suspension period;”

¶71

A counter affidavit has been filed supporting the

¶72

impugned orders. A reply affidavit also has been filed.

¶73

I have considered the contentions of the parties.

¶74

In view of Ext.P9 judgment of this court, the respondents can sustain the punishment on the petitioner only on the basis of the original enquiry report submitted by Sri. N.R. Rajkumar if the enquiry is proper and valid. By Ext.P5 order, the Managing Director himself had categorically found that, the enquiry was not conducted as per rules. From Ext.P16 enquiry report, I also do not find that, the Enquiry Officer had followed a procedure prescribed, after notice to the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to defend himself. Therefore by the

¶75

respondents own showing the said enquiry is clearly vitiated. That being so, based on that enquiry, no punishment could have been imposed on the petitioner.

¶76

W.P.(C)No.8776 of 2004

¶77

¶78

Consequently, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is clearly illegal. Accordingly Exts.P19, P20, P24, P26 & P27 are quashed. Applying Ext.P9 judgment, no further proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner by considering fresh proceedings also. Therefore the petitioner must be deemed to have retired from service without imposition of any punishment and consequently he is entitled to all retirement benefits due to him without taking into account the punishment which has been quashed by this judgment. Such arrears of retirement benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶79

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶80

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶81

shg/

E.v.Appukuttan Pillai v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.v.Appukuttan Pillai v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Rajan Vs Union of India

K.R.Bose Vs the Ksfdc

Mariyakutty Umma Vs Director of Panchayath

Reni a. Vs P.C.Binoy

Adv.K.T.Raveendranath Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Ravisankara v. Vs State of Kerala and Others