Disposed

P.J.Antony v. Spices Board

Kerala HC4 Dec 2012WP(C)/28272/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the petitioner's suspension. It directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application for review of suspension and pass appropriate orders within one month, following standard procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the application for review of suspension (Ext. P6) and pass appropriate orders within one month.

P.J.Antony Vs Spices Board — 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

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/13TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 28272 of 2012 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.J.ANTONY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.P.J.JOSEPH (LATE), ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (DEVELOPMENT), (UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION), RESIDING AT 7/929 (7), PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SANJAY NAGAR, SEKHARIPURAM POST, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SPICES BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SUGANDHA BAHVAN, N.H.BYE PASS, PB NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERANAKULAM-682 025.

¶11

2. THE CHAIRMAN,

¶12

SPICES BOARD,SUGANDHA BAHVAN, N.H.BYE PASS, PB NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERANAKULAM-682 025.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY,

¶14

SPICES BOARD,SUGANDHA BAHVAN, N.H.BYE PASS, PB NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERANAKULAM-682 025.

¶15

4. THE DIRECTOR (DEVELOPMENT), SPICES BOARD, SUGANDHA BAHVAN, N.H.BYE PASS, PB NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERANAKULAM-682 025.

¶16

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN

¶17

SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI. TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 28272 of 2012 (H)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF 3RD RESPONDENT NO.ADM/TRA/03/10/10252 DATED 30/1/2012.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT] NO.VIG/COM/02/2012/192 DATED 16/4/2012.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21415/12 DATED 17/09/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3a: EXTRACT FROM THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF SPICES BOARD.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF SPICES BOARD (CCA) RAULES 1992.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF CCS (CCA) RULES.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF APPLICATION TO REVOKE SUSPENSION DATED 10/9/2012 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF MANNUAL OF GENERAL PROCEEDURE OF SPICES BOARD.

¶31

EXHIBIT P8 : COPY OF OM NO.11013/3/2009 ESTT. DATED 2/2/2009 OF DEP. OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING..

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 28272 of 2012

¶39

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

This is the third round of litigation that is being pursued by the petitioner in respect of his suspension from service.

¶42

The petitioner was working as Assistant Director (Development) in the respondent Spices Board, who came to be suspended from service as per Ext. P2 order dated 16.04.2012. The petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No. 10056 of 2012, which was disposed of, directing the appellate authority to consider the issue and to have it finalized in accordance with law, as specified therein. Pursuant to the above verdict, the matter was considered by the appellate authority, who declined interference, leading to dismissal of the appeal, which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) 21415 of 2012. After hearing both the sides,it was observed as per Ext. P3 verdict, that there was no reason to interfere with the suspension, more so when the

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 28272 of 2012

¶44

: 2 :

¶45

power and competence of the concerned authority who passed Ext. P14 mentioned therein was not under challenge. In the said circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings were directed to be finalized at the earliest, at any rate, within two months; simultaneously observing that the petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry, to see that the enquiry was completed within the time span as mentioned above. It is stated that the period is over and the matter is still to be finalized.

¶46

The present grievance of the petitioner is that, although the petitioner had filed Ext. P6 representation dated 10.09.2012 before the second respondent seeking to review suspension, the same is not being dealt with, for the reason that there is no power for review as per Ext. P4 Rules applicable to the respondent Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, with reference to Ext. P3 (a) (allegedly downloaded from the website of the Spices Board), that it has already been provided that, in respect of other matters/areas, which were not covered by Ext. P4 Rules, the

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 28272 of 2012

¶48

: 3 :

¶49

power and procedure as prescribed under CCS(CCA) Rules shall be made applicable. The learned counsel submits that, by virtue of Rule 10 (6) of CCS (CCA) Rules, there is specific power for review of suspension and as such, Ext. P6 representation preferred by the petitioner is liable to be entertained under the said Rule.

¶50

Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board as well, who submits that, time frame stipulated by this Court as per Ext. P3 could not be complied with, which however was not because of any fault on the part of the Board, but for various reasons including the adjournments necessitated because of production of different documents by the petitioner at different points of time and such other reasons as well. It is further stated that the petitioner had also filed letters/representations seeking to drop the entire proceedings, which also required to be considered in the meanwhile. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rebut the aforesaid submissions.

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 28272 of 2012

¶52

: 4 :

¶53

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court

¶54

does not find it necessary to go into the facts and figures as the grievance now projected is with regard to the 'review' sought for, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the main relief sought for is to have the petitioner reinstated with all service benefits. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P6 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one' month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶55

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.

¶56

sd/-

¶57

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶58

kmd

P.J.Antony v. Spices Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.Antony v. Spices Board

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

K.Chandrasekharan Vs v.K.Saigal

Giri v. Vs Kseb

Shajid P P Vs State of Kerala

Binu Thomas Vs Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineer

E.M.Meenakshi Vs United India Insurance Company

Mini Mol Vs State of Kerala