Petitioner challenged termination of service made under Article 311(2) proviso. Court, noting stay on conviction after termination and petitioner's due retirement date, held the writ petition infructuous and dismissed it, leaving appeal consequences open.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. No Costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/1ST CHAITHRA, 1938
OP.No. 13420 of 2001 (V)
PETITIONER:
C.C. KUNJUKUNJU, S/O. PETER, A6 PORT QUARTERS, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM
BY ADV. SRI.S.VIJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FISHERIES AND PORTS (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP.No. 13420 of 2001 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
JJJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
O.P. No. 13420 of 2001 (V)
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was before this Court challenging
Ext.P5 order of the Government, which removed the petitioner from service invoking provisions contained in Clause (a) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The afore said termination was made on account of a conviction in a criminal case initiated by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.
the stay of conviction was on 19.07.2000, as is seen at Ext.P3, after the termination order was passed.
O.P. No. 13420/2001
-2-
Further, it is to be noticed that even according to the petitioner, the petitioner was due to retire on 31.03.2000. Hence, Ext.P3 order could have had no effect on the petitioner's reinstatement.
The writ petition would stand dismissed as infructuous. No Costs.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
jjj 21/3/16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the termination order is maintainable given the stay on conviction and impending retirement.
Whether consequences of an appeal against the termination order need to be considered at this stage.
Whether the writ petition is infructuous and needs to be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.C. KUNJUKUNJU
THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
