Disposed

R. Jayasankar v. the Kerala Financial Corporation.

Kerala HC8 Feb 2016WP(C)/3305/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Board of Directors of the Kerala Financial Corporation should consider afresh the issue of minor penalties imposed on the petitioner after a grievance committee recommended reconsideration based on subsequent events. The Board is directed to decide whether to impose any punishment, not more grievous than previously imposed, within three months after hearing.

What did the court decide?

The Board of Directors shall consider the issue afresh and decide on whether the petitioner should be imposed with any punishment at all, passing fresh orders within three months after affording an op

R. Jayasankar Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/19TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 3305 of 2010 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

R.JAYASANKAR, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶9

SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.RAMESH. C.R. SRI.K.V.VIMAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 033.

¶12

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 033.

¶13

3. GENERAL MANAGER II, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695 033.

¶14

R,R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU,SC,KERALA FINANCIAL COR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-022016, ALONG WITH WPC. 3331/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 3305 of 2010

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶19

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.12/01-02 DATED 17.1.2002 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 28.7.2008 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KFC/GMII/1640/08-09 DATED 7.8.2008 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 12.8.2008SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P3.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE NO.2016 DT.2.9.2008 OF THE GENERAL MANAGER II OF THE CORPORATION.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION DT.24.9.2008.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KFC/MD/2275/08 DT. 16.10.2008.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE REPLY DT.20.10.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P7.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KFC/MD/2602/09 DATED 22.7.2009.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE APPEAL (REVIEW) DATED 5.8.2009 BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION.
EXT.P11:	COPY OF THE MEMO NO.3338 DATED 13.10.2009 OF THE GENERAL MANAGER II.
EXT.P12:	COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE BANK PUBLISHED IN THE 'MALAYALA MANORAMA' DAILY DATED 17.09.2011.
EXT.P13:	COPY OF MINUTES OF THE BOARD DECISION.

¶20

WP(C).No. 3305 of 2010

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXTS:

¶22

EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.09.2010 RECEIVED FROM AXIS BANK. EXT.R1(b): MINUTES OF THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE HELD ON 4.4.2013. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 571^st BOARD MEETING HELD ON 4.6.2013.

¶23

//TRUE COPY//

¶24

PA TO JUDGE

¶25

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶26

--------------------------------------------W.P.C.Nos.3305 & 3331 OF 2010

¶27

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶30

The petitioner, identical in both the writ petitions was

¶31

proceeded against on allegations of having not followed the ideal customer practices in the disbursement of loans. Two customers who approached the Corporation, while the petitioner was working as a Deputy General Manager, was aggrieved with the attitude of the petitioner and raised complaints as to the unnecessary delay caused in considering the loan applications and making recommendations. Admittedly, there was no inquiry proceedings since the disciplinary authority had not intended to impose any major penalty.

¶32

The explanation of the petitioner was sought for, on the show cause notice issued based on the complaints raised by the prospective customers of the Corporation. The petitioner in both the instances was imposed with a punishment; barring of two increments in one case and in the other, barring of one increment, both without cumulative effect. The petitioner

¶33

W.P.(C) Nos.3305 & 3331/2010

¶34

-2-

¶35

challenges the respective orders before this Court by the above two writ petitions.

¶36

As of now, it has transpired that both the customers were found to have no credit-worthiness by reason of their subsequent conduct. In W.P.(C) No.3305/2010, the allegation was with respect to one M/s. Ann Group, Pala. Subsequent to the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner,the said customer had approached another bank being the Axis Bank from where the loan was availed and which has been defaulted and the Axis bank has now proceeded for recovery. In W.P.(C) No.3331/2010 also, though the loan was granted to the person, overlooking the recommendation of the petitioner, the same has been defaulted and the Corporation itself is proceeding for recovery. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner's actions were correct and the petitioner did not recommend sanction of the loan only due to the creditworthiness of the prospective borrowers having not been proved by them. It was only due to the ill will by reason of the petitioner having not recommended the loans that the complaints were raised, is the allegation.

¶37

W.P.(C) Nos.3305 & 3331/2010

¶38

-3-

¶39

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation however would assert that it is not the issue of whether the loans were defaulted or not, but, the complaint raised was with respect to the manner in which the petitioner treated the customer. It is not for a moment argued that the petitioner did not have the authority to refuse recommendation. But, however, the same had to be done in a proper manner, without any complaints being raised against the officials of the Corporation.

¶40

Be that as it may, as of now, the petitioner has approached the grievance committee. The grievance committee has looked into the allegations and found that the petitioner's case should be reconsidered. The disciplinary authority's punishment was enhanced by the Managing Director in appeal, in one instance, which was again reversed by the Board of Directors in the further appeal, but, however, upholding the bindings of the disciplinary authority. It was considering the subsequent events that the grievance committee made a recommendation to the Board to reconsider the issue by Ext.R1(b) produced in W.P.(C) No.3305/2010 and Ext.P10

¶41

W.P.(C) Nos.3305 & 3331/2010

¶42

-4-

¶43

produced in W.P.(C)No.3331/2010. The Board, however, has refused to consider the same on the ground that it would not be a good practice to reopen cases. It is also observed that the Court could definitely consider the issue. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the Board's decision was during the pendency of the writ petition and the Board, considering the fact that this Court is seized of the matter, did not want to interfere in the meanwhile.

¶44

In such circumstances, the Board shall consider the issue looking at the facts revealed subsequently and the nature of the complaints made. It is made clear that the direction so issued is only on the peculiar facts of the above case and the grievance committee cannot sit in appeal over the Board's decision. In the peculiar facts arising in this case, the Board would consider the issue afresh and Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.3305/2010 and Ext.P7 in W.P.(C)No.3331/2010 are set aside to facilitate such consideration, especially since this Court has found that the grievance committee has no authority to interfere with the Board's decision. The Board shall consider the issue afresh, since there was no domestic inquiry as such initiated, and

¶45

W.P.(C) Nos.3305 & 3331/2010

¶46

-5-

¶47

the imposition was only of a minor penalty. The Board shall consider the issue as directed herein to decide on whether the petitioner should be imposed with any punishment at all. The issue shall be considered afresh and fresh orders shall be passed within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. When such consideration is made it is made clear that the punishment, if at all imposed, shall not be more grievous than that already imposed by the Board, by the orders set-aside herein.

¶48

Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶51

ps/8/2/16xxx

R. Jayasankar v. the Kerala Financial Corporation.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Jayasankar v. the Kerala Financial Corporation.

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

M.Thrivikraman Namboothiri Vs v.S.Jayakumar

Binoy Mathew Vs the K.P.S.C.

P.K.Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith A.S Vs State of Kerala

K.U. Mini Vs Kerala Water Authority

A.T.Ramachandran Vs the Secretary to Government of India