Disposed

V.Anilal v. the Kollam Corporation

Kerala HC30 Nov 2012WP(C)/20586/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the petitioner's suspension and lack of authority of the Secretary, the Court directed the Corporation to finalize disciplinary proceedings within two months without expressing an opinion on the merits regarding the legality of the suspension.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to finalize the disciplinary proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

V.Anilal Vs the Kollam Corporation — 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

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 20586 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.ANILAL, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYARAJAN, BILL COLLECTOR (UNDER SUSPENSION), KILIKOLLOOR ZONAL OFFICE OF KOLLAM CORPORATION KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

¶9

SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENNTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, , PIN - 691 001.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

¶13

3. THE CHARGE OFFICER, KILIKOLLOOR ZONAL OFFICE OF KOLLAM CORPORATION, KILIKOLLOR (P.O.), KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 004.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,S.C.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 20586 of 2012 (W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE MEMO NO.G6-7128/2012 DT.04.02.2012. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.21.02.2012 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G6-7128/2012 DT.22.02.2012. EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE MEMO NO.G8/G6/7128/12 DT.16.03.2012. EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.16.04.2012. EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF THE MEMO NO.G8-(G6)7128/2012 DT.20.04.2012.

¶22

EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.23.04.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P8 : COPY OF THE MEMO NO.G8/G6/7128/2012 DT.02.05.2012

¶24

EXHIBIT P9 : COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 2.2.2012 OF THE CHARGE OFFICER BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P10 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G8-27806/05, DATED 2.03.2012 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P11 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.02.2012.

¶27

EXHIBIT P12 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G8/G6/728/2012 DATED 2.05.2012 BY THE P.A. TO THE SECRETARY.

¶28

EXHIBIT P13 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE SMT.SAJIMOLE, ON 20.03.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF LSGD.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 20586 of 2012

¶36

¶37

Dated, this the 30^th day of November, 2012

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner, who was working as Bill Collector came to be suspended from service of the Corporation as per Ext. P3, pending disciplinary proceedings, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶40

The main ground raised in the writ petition is that the second respondent, who has passed the order of suspension, does not have any authority, power, jurisdiction or competence to pass such an order and that the same is in violation of Section 15 (6) of the Municipalities Act. There is also a case for the petitioner that the order of suspension was never placed in the next meeting, to have it ratified by the Council and by virtue of the 'proviso' to Section 15 (6) of the Act, the suspension order shall stand invalid.

¶41

The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement, referring to the sequence of events and also as to the grave nature of misconduct committed by the petitioner in total

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 20586 of 2012

¶43

: 2 :

¶44

disregard to the duties, especially with regard to collection of Revenue. Reference is also made to Section '49 K' of the

¶45

Kerala Municipality Act as to the power and authority of the Secretary to take disciplinary action against Municipal employees with the knowledge of the Chair person. It has been further asserted in paragraph 6 that the suspension of the petitioner has been subsequently withdrawn, without prejudice to the enquiry and that the enquiry is going on, based on the charge sheet issued vide Ext. P4.

¶46

The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, deprecating the course and proceedings pursued by the respondent Corporation, reiterating that the suspension was totally illegal and violative of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Municipality in detail.

¶48

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the disciplinary proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion. The main grievance with the regard to the suspension has been redressed, in so far as the respondent Corporation has chosen to re-instate the petitioner in service.

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 20586 of 2012

¶50

: 3 :

¶51

Remaining question is whether the suspension is bad in law, in view of Section 15 (6) of the Municipalities Act, and if so, how the period of suspension has to be regularized.

¶52

Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to finalize the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that challenge raised by the petitioner with regard to power and authority of the Secretary to have placed the petitioner under suspension and the course which to be followed with regard to the period during which the petitioner was kept under suspension, till he was reinstated, is left open, to be considered and decided in the due course.

¶53

The Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing anything on merits.

¶54

sd/-

¶55

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶56

kmd

V.Anilal v. the Kollam Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Anilal v. the Kollam Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.C.Prajitha Vs the Assistant Educational Officer

Dr.Joseph James Vs the Registrar

N.M. Majeed Vs the Manager

Abdul Azeez Vs Sudevan.v.D.

R.Murali Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

P.a.Sunny Vs the State of Kerala