Disposed

P.K.Unnikrishnan v. the State Co-Operative Federation for Fisheries Department

Kerala HC26 Mar 2012WA/595/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondent to conduct an inquiry into false allegations made against the appellant that influenced his transfer. The appellant was ordered to be restored to his original station if exonerated, with strict directions to complete the inquiry within three months without adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Conduct inquiry within three months and restore appellant to original station if exonerated.

P.K.Unnikrishnan Vs the State Co-Operative Federation… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/6TH CHAITHRA 1934

¶6

WA.No. 595 of 2012

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.34209/2011 DATED 31-01-2012

¶8

APPELLANT /APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE W.P(C):

¶9

P.K.UNNIKRISHNAN,ASSISTANT MANAGER, MATSYAFED DISTRCT OFFICE KASARAGODE, (FORMERLY ASSISTANT MANAGER OBM DIVISION, (OUTBOARD MOTOR DIVISION) WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.LEELAKRISHNAN

¶11

SRI.SHYAM KRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P(C).:

¶13

1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT,

¶14

(MATSYAFED), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶15

KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O.

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.

¶17

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶18

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT

¶19

(MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O.

¶20

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.

¶21

3. K. SOMARAJAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶22

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT

¶23

(MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O.

¶24

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.

¶25

4. T.V. RAMESHAN,

¶26

MANAGER, MATSYAFED, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT OFFICE

¶27

WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-5. [FORMER MANAGER

¶28

MATSYAFED OBM DIVISION

¶29

(OUT BORARD MOTOR DIVISION), WILLINGDON ISLAND KOCHI-3.

¶30

5. MANAGER,

¶31

MATSYAFED, OBM DIVISION, (OUTBOARD MOTOR DIVISION)

¶32

WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3.

¶33

6. P.G. UNNIKRISHNAN,

¶34

ASSISTANT MANAGER, MATSYAFED, OBM DIVISION

¶35

(OUTBOARD MOTOR DIVISION), WILLINGDON ISLAND

¶36

KOCHI-3.

¶37

BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC,MATSYAFED

¶38

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

jma

¶40

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶41

¶42

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.

¶43

W.A. No. 595 of 2012

¶44

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2012.

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶47

The appellant, an Assistant Manager who served for 20 years in Kochi was transferred to Kazargode, which was the challenge before the learned Single Judge, but without success. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before us that false allegations were raised against him by vested interests which led to the Managing Director, transferring him. Counsel for the first respondent took notice on admission and submitted that allegations were not only against the appellant but also against the Manager and both were transferred simultaneously. We do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, because transfer is a routine matter and the fact that the appellant was allowed to continue for 20 years in the same station, does not mean that he has a right to

¶48

Writ Appeal No. 595/2012 2

¶49

continue there until retirement. However there is some force in the contention of the appellant's counsel that when transfer is coupled with the false allegation against the appellant, there will be a stigma on the appellant, everybody tending to believe that the transfer is a virtual punishment. We therefore feel that the appellant should be cleared of the allegations and if in enquiry, the allegations are found to be baseless and if the transfer is only on account of the allegation, then the appellant should be restored back to the station clearing him of all the allegations against him. We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal directing the first respondent to conduct enquiry on the allegations and if the appellant is exonerated from the allegations, to restore him to the original station, if, but for the allegation, transfer would not have taken place. Enquiry should be completed within three months but with a rider that appellant should not ask for adjournment unnecessarily, delaying the matter.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (Judge)

¶52

Sd/ K. VINOD CHANDRAN (Judge)

¶53

jma

P.K.Unnikrishnan v. the State Co-Operative Federation for Fisheries Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Unnikrishnan v. the State Co-Operative Federation for Fisheries Department

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

Sujayakumar K.S Vs State of Kerala

Kerala University Vs Manager, Malankara Syrian Catholic

Deputy Chief Engineer Vs M.C.Narayanan Nair

Alathur Grama Panchayat Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

R.F.Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)

Maryamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala