Disposed

S Ansalam v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Kerala HC11 Feb 2015Con.Case(C)/1304/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an acknowledgement of service or incidental matter in a contempt case, the court accepted the submission that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Consequently, the court closed the contempt case while reserving liberty to challenge future disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The contempt of court case is closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge proceedings if any issued against him.

S Ansalam Vs the Managing Director, Ksrtc — Kerala HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/22ND MAGHA, 1936

¶5

Con.Case (C).No. 1304 of 2014 (S)

¶6

ARISING FROM JUDGMENT DATED 15-01-2014 IN WP(C) 882/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶8

S. ANSALAM, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. S.SAMUEL, PRANAVAM, ELAMANNUR P.O. ADOOR PIN: 691524 (SENIOR ASSISTANT), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KOTTARAKARA DEPOT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1&2 IN WPC:

¶11

SRI. ANTONY CHACKO,

¶12

(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶13

KERAL STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶14

SRI. K.M.SREEKUMAR

¶15

(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) MANAGER ACCOUNTS IN-CHARGE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE) KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAURAM-695027.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC

¶17

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

AMG

¶19

Con. Case (c) No.1304/2014

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶22

ANNEXURE-1-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 26-10-2013.
ANNEXURE-2-	TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 12-11-2013.
ANNEXURE-3-	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-01-2014 IN WPC No.882/2014.
ANNEXURE-4-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.VLC1 05998/2001 DATED 03-05-2014.
ANNEXURE-5-	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-09-2014 IN WPC No.18681/2014.
ANNEXURE-6-	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO No.LS3/6572/Mis DATED 27-12-2014.
ANNEXURE-7-	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29-12-2014.
ANNEXURE-8-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER No.B1/5855/14/KTR DATED 01-01-2015.
ANNEXURE-9-	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN “CHHEL SINGH V. MGB GRAMEEN BANK, PALI AND OTHERS” DATED 07-07-2014.
ANNEXURE-10-	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 07-01-2015.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES

¶24

ANNEXURE-R1 (a) - TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 27-11-2014. ANNEXURE-R1 (b)TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 01-11-2014. ANNEXURE-R1 (c)TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11-12-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE CON. CASE. ANNEXURE-R1 (d)TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 04-11-2014.

True copy

P.A. To Judge

AMG

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶29

Con. Case (c) No. 1304 OF 2014

¶30

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015.

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Standing counsel submitted that enquiry against the

¶33

petitioner had since been completed and a show cause notice proposing punishment had already been issued. Final proceedings in the disciplinary action will be issued on receipt of the explanation, if any to the show cause notice, within a short period, is the submission.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶35

the petitioner is proposing to challenge the enquiry report as well as the disciplinary proceedings. However, further steps in this contempt of court case is not warranted under the above mentioned circumstances.

¶36

Therefore the contempt of court case is hereby

¶37

closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge proceedings if any issued against him in appropriate steps.

Sd/-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

AMG

True copy P.A. to Judge

S Ansalam v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Ansalam v. the Managing Director, Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep T Vs Shri Antony Chacko

Moospet Service Co-Operative Bank Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Employees Pensin

M/S.Kitex Group of Companies Vs K.S.E.B and Others

The Manager Vs Viswas Mehta

V.Govindan Nair Vs the General Manager

Suresh Kumar Vs R.Janardhanan Pillai & Others