Allowed

N.T.Joys v. Cochin Port Trust Willington Island

Kerala HC31 Oct 2012WP(C)/1789/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired employee filed a writ petition seeking quashing of a memorandum of charges and direction to disburse retirement benefits. The court considered the enquiry report showing no evidence of misconduct and a management order acquitting the petitioner, directing the trust to pay the pension.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to disburse the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

N.T.Joys Vs Cochin Port Trust Willington Island — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1789 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

N.T.JOYS, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, NEREVEETTIL HOUSE, TRIKKAKARA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.DIVAKARAN SRI.BINOI GEORGE (CHERUKARA) SRI.VINUCHAND

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. COCHIN PORT TRUST WILLINGTON ISLAND COCHIN, PIN-682009, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN PIN-682009

¶12

3. CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN PIN-682009.

¶13

4. C.R. ASHOK KUMAR ENQUIRY OFFICER, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (MECHANIC), SDO SE(R&M) OFFICE, COCHIN PORT TRUST WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN, PIN-682009.

¶14

RR1 TO 4 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 1789 of 2012 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5.10.2011.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 7.10.2011.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/10/2011.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE DATED 28/10/2011.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ON 8/11/2011.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY NOTICE FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 5/1/2012.
EXT.P8	NIL
EXT.P9	NIL
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 1/6/2012

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE COCHIN PORT EMPLOYEES (CONDUCT) REGULATIONS, 1964.

// TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

W.P. © No.1789 OF 2012

¶27

......................................................................... Dated this the 31^st October , 2012

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to quash Ext. P5 memorandum of charges levelled against him and also for a direction to the first respondent to disburse the retirement benefits in respect of the service rendered under the first respondent.

¶30

The petitioner retired from the service on 31.10.2011 as a Foreman. According to the petitioner, just three weeks prior to the date of retirement, another employee filed a false complaint before the 2^nd respondent as borne by Ext.P1; pursuant to which, an enquiry was conducted by the third respondent. It is stated that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in Ext.P1. The third respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide Ext. P3, which was responded to by submitting Ext. P4 reply. The allegation in the complaint was that somebody cut the shirt sleeves of the concerned employee, which was being

¶31

¶32

¶33

enquired into, alleging the same as a misconduct liable to be proceeded against under the Cochin Port Employees (Conduct ) Regulations, 1964. On the date of retirement, the petitioner was served with Ext.P5 memo of charges, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for immediate interference, also projecting the vagueness of the charge sheet, which, according to the petitioner is not liable to be pursued in view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in State of A.P. and others v. S. Sree

¶34

Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723].

¶35

Respondents 1 to 4 have filed a detailed counter affidavit referring to the sequence of events. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A.No.7978 of 2012, producing a copy of the report dated 01.06.2012 submitted by the 4^th respondent as Ext. P10 (which, of course is in respect of another employee, but in respect of the same cause of action). The Enquiry Officer reported as per Ext.P10 that no evidence was let in either oral, documentary or circumstantial, in respect of the alleged misconduct. This being the position, nothing further remains to be enquired into and the matter has

¶36

¶37

¶38

necessarily to be closed, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶39

During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submits that the course pursued by the respondents, initiating disciplinary action against all concerned is admittedly on the basis of a complaint preferred by a co-worker, which had necessarily to be enquired into, so as to maintain discipline and to deal with the misconduct, if any. The learned Counsel also points out that there is no specific plea of malafides against the officers of the first respondent. However, in view of the contents of the enquiry report filed by the 4^th respondent, the matter has been considered by the Management, whereby an order dated 23.10.2012 (signed on 29.10.2012) was passed closing the proceedings taken against the petitioner, taking a lenient view on humanitarian consideration. The learned Counsel produced a copy of the said order for perusal of this Court, along with a copy of the enquiry report as mentioned above. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted below:

¶40

“Hence the undersigned taking a lenient

¶41

¶42

¶43

view on humanitarian ground since the delinquent employee deserves pensionary benefits on natural justice and as the charges of the retred person are not proved due to technical reasons, Shri N.T. Joy, Foreman, SE (M) R&M Division is hereby acquitted from the charges leveled against him enabling him to avail the retirement benefits as an employee retiring on normal course without any further liability on the part of the Port due to this disciplinary action. “

¶44

In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to disburse the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment .

¶45

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶46

N.T.Joys v. Cochin Port Trust Willington Island

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.T.Joys v. Cochin Port Trust Willington Island

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

T.B.Anilkumar Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Syamkumar P Vs the State of Kerala

G.Surendran Pillai Vs the Union of India

K.Bhadran Vs Kerala State Financial Eterprises Ltd.

P.R.Ayyappan Vs K.S.E.B.,Rep.Secretary,Trivandrum

Jacob P.Abraham Vs State of Kerala