Allowed

B.M.Ajithkumar v. Travancore Devosom Board and Others

Kerala HC4 Apr 2011WP(C)/2835/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the endorsement of suspension as extraordinary leave in the petitioner's service book and directed the respondents to complete pending disciplinary proceedings within three months and determine regularization. The court also recorded the board's stance on pending salary arrears.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the endorsement of suspension as extraordinary leave; directed completion of disciplinary proceedings within 3 months; directed payment of salary arrears.

B.M.Ajithkumar Vs Travancore Devosom Board… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 2835 of 2011(D)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

B.M.AJITHKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF HRISHIKESAN EMBRANTHIRI, BANTHALOT MANA, KONATHU KUNNU (PO), IRINGALAKUDA, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 004.

¶14

2. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM- 695 004.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, AMBALAPUZHA GROUP, AMBALAPUZHA - 688 561.

¶16

4. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, THRIKKARIYOOR GROUP, THRIKKARIYOOR - 686 692.

¶17

5. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, PARAVOOR GROUP, PARAVOOR - 683 523.

¶18

6. SUB GROUP OFFICER, NEELESWARAM DEVASWOM SUB GROUP, NEELESWARAM, VADAKKEKARA P.O.PIN-683 522.

¶19

7. MANAGER, ANDIPALLY DEVASWOM, NEELESWAR SUB GROUP, PARAVOOR - 683 523.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

svs

¶23

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 2835 of 2011

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2011

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement in Ext.P11 service book of the petitioner to the effect that the period during which the petitioner was kept under suspension has been regularized as extraordinary leave, without the petitioner having been found guilty of any charges. According to the petitioner, although a memo of charges was issued to the petitioner as early as on 27.08.1997 it had not culminated into an order of punishment, completing the disciplinary proceedings and therefore no endorsement regarding regularization of the period of suspension as extraordinary leave can be endorsed in his service book. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶29

“(i) To call for the records relating to Exhibit P11 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶30

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to grant the increments and Bonus of the petitioner for the years

¶31

W.P.(C)No. 2835 of 2011

¶32

-2-

¶33

1993 and 1997-98 and 1998-99.

¶34

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period from 1.7.2010 to 19.7.2010.”

¶35

On 28.02.2011, I passed the following order:

¶36

“The learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board shall inform this court as to whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner has been taken to its logical conclusion and if so, what was the result.

¶37

The standing counsel shall file a statement.”

¶38

The Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board now submits that the enquiry file and even the file relating to regularization of the period of suspension of the petitioner could not be traced in the office of the Board. But he submits that an enquiry was conducted with notice to the petitioner and an enquiry report has been obtained wherein the charges were partly found to have been proved and the Board proposes to complete the proceedings in the disciplinary action by serving a copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner giving him an opportunity to show cause against the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry report and the proposed punishment which proceedings would be

¶39

W.P.(C)No. 2835 of 2011

¶40

-3-

¶41

completed without further delay.

¶42

The petitioner does not dispute the fact that an enquiry was conducted. But his contention is that thereafter he was not informed anything about the same.

¶43

Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶44

The endorsement in the service book of the petitioner to the effect that the suspension period has been regularized as extraordinary leave is hereby quashed. The 2^nd respondent is directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after complying the principles of natural justice, expeditiously. After completing the disciplinary proceedings orders regarding regularization of the suspension period also shall be passed expeditiously thereafter. The entire proceedings shall be completed within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

The counsel for the petitioner has got a claim for arrears of salary as well, for the period from 01.07.2010 to

¶46

W.P.(C)No. 2835 of 2011

¶47

-4-

¶48

19.07.2010. The Standing Counsel submits that, that salary would be disbursed along with the salary of the petitioner for March 2011. This is recorded. If it is not paid along with the salary for March 2011, the same shall also be paid within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. TO JUDGE

shg/

B.M.Ajithkumar v. Travancore Devosom Board and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.M.Ajithkumar v. Travancore Devosom Board and Others

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

Venukumar M.S. and Anothers Vs State of Kerala and Others

Ajithakumari T.P. Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Mammen Alexander and Others Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

B.Vijayan Vs Niveditha P.Haran

M.Gangadharan Vs P.R.Anitha

Sreekumar M. Vs Director of Technical Education