Dismissed

A T James v. Jayachandran

Kerala HC11 Mar 2016RP/1150/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition seeking recording of three disciplinary proceedings orders for the petitioner's compliance in a prior contempt case. The court reviewed the judgment to include all orders, found no contumacious conduct despite short delay, and closed the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed by noting compliance; review of the impugned judgment ordered to record three disciplinary orders.

A T James Vs Jayachandran — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/21ST PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 1150 of 2015 (S)

¶6

------------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Con.Case(C).NO. 1641/2015 DATED 02-11-2015)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

A.T. JAMES, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, SUPPLYCO, MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 020.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶11

K.JAYACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIKRISHNA PILLAI, ATHIRA BHAVAN, MYLAM, CHERIYAKONNI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

R.P.NO.1150/2015

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEX 1	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.T9 5026/14 DATED 20/10/2015
	PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY FINALIZING THE
	DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT
	AS PER EXT.P6 MEMO OF CHARGES.

¶19

ANNEX 2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.T9/9450/2004 DATED 20/10/2015 PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY FINALIZING THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT AS PER EXT.P2 MEMO OF CHARGES

¶20

ANNEX 3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.T9/2498/02 DATED 20/10/2015 PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY FINALIZING THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT AS PER EXT.P3 MEMO OF CHARGES.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. R.P.No.1150 2015

¶26

in Contempt Case (C).No.1641 of 2015 ............................................................. Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This is a petition filed for review of the judgment in Contempt Case(C).No.1641 of 2015 where, this Court, while closing the contempt case after finding that the petitioner in the review petition had complied with the directions in the judgment dated 26.06.2015 by completing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the writ petition, also noted that the liability fixed on the writ petitioner, by an order dated 20.10.2015, was Rs.5,340/-. In the review petition, it is pointed out that there were actually three disciplinary proceedings and, consequently, three orders that were passed while completing the said proceedings and, while closing the contempt case, reference was made only to one of the proceedings and the order passed in the said proceedings. In the review petition, the review petitioner produces as Annexures -2 and 3, the orders passed in the other two disciplinary proceedings referred to above. In the said orders also, there are amounts of

¶29

R.P.No.1150 2015 in

¶30

-2-

¶31

Contempt Case (C).No.1641 of 2015

¶32

Rs.35,807.64/- and Rs.1,26,131.43/- fixed as the liability of the writ petitioner consequent to the said disciplinary proceedings. In the review petition, the review petitioner prays that while recording the fact of compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 26.06.2015, reference be made to the three orders referred above and not solely to the order in the 1^st mentioned disciplinary proceedings.

¶33

On a perusal of the averments in the review petition, and on considering the contentions raised before me by counsel for the review petitioner and the respondents, I am of the view that, the judgment dated 02.11.2015 in Contempt Case(C).No.1641 of 2015 requires to be reviewed, so as to record the fact of the review petitioner having complied with the directions in the judgment dated 26.06.2015, by passing three separate orders in respect of the three disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against the writ petitioner. As I do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the review petitioner, in respect of the short delay occassioned while complying with the directions in the judgment referred above, I am of the view that the circumstances do not

¶34

-3-

¶35

R.P.No.1150 2015 in Contempt Case (C).No.1641 of 2015

¶36

warrant the invocation of the contempt jurisdiction against the review petitioner. The contempt case is thus closed by noting the fact of compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 26.06.2015. It is made clear that, if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the review petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated and completed against him, it will be open to the writ petitioner to challenge the said orders in appropriate proceedings.

¶37

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶38

mns/11.3.16

A T James v. Jayachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A T James v. Jayachandran

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

Ashalatha Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Shaji George Vs Authorised Officer

Saranya Balakrishnan Vs Manager

Dr.Soumya.P.Susheel Vs Smt.Maya.P.M

M/S.Orma Granite Centre Vs Rajan Khobragade

Hamza Vs the Authorised Officer