Dismissed

Ragesh Kumar K. v. the Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016WP(C)/5156/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, excluded from appointment due to lack of qualifications, challenged the Rubber Board's decision to admit appointees with fabricated certificates. The Court dismissed the writ petition holding that determining the quantum of punishment for such misconduct is exclusively within the employer's domain under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no relief was granted to the petitioner.

Ragesh Kumar K. Vs the Ministry of Commerce and Industry — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5156 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAGESH KUMAR K., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUNJIRAMAN, KUNNEMMEL HOUSE, KALLIYAD P.O, IRIKKOOR, KANNUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH

¶9

SMT.R.LEELA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶12

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001

¶13

2. THE RUBBER BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS THE CHAIRMAN,

¶14

RUBBER BOARD, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KOTTAYAM-686 002

¶15

3. THE CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KOTTAYAM-686 002

¶16

4. RAJESH V.K., KARITHODU HOUSE, KADAYANNIKAD POST, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 550

¶17

5. NIMIL.S., NIMIL BHAVAN,PIDAVOOR POST, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN-691 625

¶18

6. ANIL T.O., THEKKEKARA HOUSE, KANNANCHIRA,PUTHEN CHANTHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 538

¶19

7. SIVADASAN G., SIVABHAVANAM, KOTTARAMTHOPPIL, THATTARAMBALAM POST, MAVELIKARA, PIN-690 103

¶20

2/-

¶21

-2-

¶22

WP(C).NO.5156/2013

¶23

8. GOPALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR, KALLAMPARAMBIL, KOTTARAMTHOPPIL, THATTARAMBALAM POST, MAVELIKKARA, PIN-690 103

¶24

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS R6 TO R8 BY ADVS. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.VINO V.GEORGE

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

sts

¶27

WP(C).NO.5156/2013

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶30

EXT.P1:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO.3/2004 ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD DTD 28/12/2004
EXT.P2:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P3:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 10/5/2000
EXT.P4:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 21/4/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 9/6/2011 IN WPC 15375/2011
EXT.P6:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD 22/7/2011 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXT.P7:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT DTD 29/8/2011
EXT.P8:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 3/11/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P9:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 30/3/2012 IN WPC 6491/12 OF THIS COURT
EXT.P10:-	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DTD 22/3/2012 OF THE SECRETARY OF THE RUBBER BOARD.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶32

R2(A):-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/6/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT
R2(B):-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/6/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT
R2(C):-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/6/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.V.ASHA J.

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2013

¶38

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2016

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The petitioner, who was an applicant for appointment to the post of Rubber Tapping Demonstrator under the Rubber Board and was included in the rank list as Rank No.11 has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Rubber Board on his request to take action against the candidates who obtained appointment producing fabricated certificates, as revealed in Ext.P7 Investigation Report.

¶41

The Rubber Board had by Ext.P1 notification dated 28.12.2004, invited applications from qualified hands for appointment against one vacancy of Rubber Tapping Demonstrator. Apart from pass in S.S.L.C or equivalent examination, a certificate of training in Rubber Tapping conducted by the Rubber Board at the Rubber Tappers Training School or in any other institution approved by the Board and three years experience in tapping in a rubber estate/small holding were prescribed

¶42

W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2013

¶43

¶44

as qualification. The Rubber Board published a select list of the selected candidate after conducting practical test and interview held on 22.07.2005. The respondents 4 to 8 were ranked between 1 and 6 in this rank list. The petitioner has produced the certificate. Ext.P3 to show that he has completed a training conducted by the Rubber Board under the Regional Office in tapping rubber trees and hence according to him he is fully qualified and he had produced the original certificates before the respondents.

¶45

According to the petitioner, on coming to know that the candidates who got appointment in the year 2005 did not have the requisite experience as provided in the notification he submitted several representations pointing out that the certificates of experience produced by respondents 4 to 8 were not obtained after actually gaining experience and that the certificates they had produced were false and fabricated. He submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 21.04.2011, pointing out the defects in the certificates produced. Thereafter, he approached

¶46

W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2013

¶47

¶48

this Court in W.P.(C).No.15375 of 2011 when the respondent Rubber Board submitted before the Court that an enquiry was going on in respect of the issue and this Court by Ext.P4 judgment dated 09.06.2011 directed the respondents to complete the said enquiry, within the period of 4 months. Thereafter, by Ext.P7 letter dated 18.10.2011 the Rubber Board forwarded a copy of the Investigation Report to the petitioner, in which the certificates produced by respondents 6 to 8 were found to be fabricated. Petitioner thereafter, submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 03.11.2011, stating that the respondents who obtained appointment producing false and fabricated certificates where retained in the service while the petitioner who produced true certificate after having obtained clear experience was kept out without appointment and requested for appointing him at the earliest. He thereafter filed W.P.(C).No.6491 of 2011, which was dismissed by Ext.P9 judgment recording the submission of the Rubber Board to the effect that action was already taken by the Rubber Board as per

¶49

¶50

W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2013

¶51

proceedings dated 22.03.2012. It was thereafter, the petitioner was informed by Ext.P10 that since the selection process was conducted in the year 2005, the same could not be revised at this distance of time and the appointments were made on the basis of a selection conducted in accordance with law. It was challenging Ext.P10 that the petitioner approached this Court.

¶52

The respondents filed their counter affidavit producing Exts.R2(a) and (b) by which the respondents 7 and 8 were awarded punishment of barring of one increment for one year. According to the respondents, since the representation was filed only in the year 2011 and it was only in the year 2011 that the fabrication of documents were found out, the respondents 6 to 8 who were appointed in 2005 were proceeded with disciplinary action and a punishment of barring of increments was awarded and no other punishment was found necessary in the circumstances of the case. It was also stated that some of the respondents did have actual experience apart from that covered by the fabricated certificates though

¶53

W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2013

¶54

¶55

the certificates they produced at the time of selection

¶56

were fabricated and the punishment was awarded.

¶57

The petitioner's claim is that the punishment to the party respondents is not sufficient. After hearing the contentions raised on either side, I am of the view that what is the proper punishment when the employees are found to have furnished fabricated documents for obtaining appointment, is a matter exclusively coming within the domain of the employer and it is to be decided by the employer. This Court cannot interfere with these matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶58

Under the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this Writ Petition. Hence, it is dismissed.

¶59

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶60

AS/16/06/16

Ragesh Kumar K. v. the Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragesh Kumar K. v. the Ministry of Commerce and Industry

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

State of Kerala Vs Anitha Thomas R.

Biju R Vs the Commandant

Hamsa Haji Vs the State of Kerala

Jayakrishnan.R Vs Indian Institute of Management

T K Ratnakaran Nair Vs National Institute of Technology

Arunkumar P.S. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India