Dismissed

V.K.Nityanandan v. S. Ratnakumaran, Managing Director, Kerala State Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd.

Kerala HC11 Dec 2017Con.Case(C)/1585/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to hold employer guilty of contempt for allegedly refusing to reinstate him despite interim stay orders. The court found the directives ambiguous between restoring status quo ante or ceasing suspension. Unable to prove willful disobedience due to this ambiguity, the contempt petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; no contempt found.

V.K.Nityanandan Vs S. Ratnakumaran, Managing Director… — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶7

Con.Case(C).No. 1585 of 2012 (S) IN WP(C).12405/2012

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶9

V.K.NITYANANDAN

¶10

AGED 49, (S/O.V.U.KUTTAPPAN PILLAI (LATE), GENERAL MANAGER, FINANCE (UNDER SUSPENSION), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., 'SOUPARNIKA', EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682024.

¶11

BY ADVS.SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN SMT.A.RAJESWARI

¶12

RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶13

S. RATNAKUMARAN, S/O SREEDHARAN, AGED 55, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.

¶14

GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC, Ag. C.J. &

¶18

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶19

Contempt Case (Civil) No.1585 of 2012

¶20

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2017

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶23

The petitioner, while working as a General Manager in the Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd., was initially suspended from service, pending disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.12405 of 2012. He was ordered to be reinstated, as

¶24

an interim measure. He was reinstated.

¶25

Later, the employer issued another charge-sheet concerning another alleged misconduct and again suspended the petitioner. This time, too, the petitioner approached this

¶26

Court by filing W.P.(C) No.28358 of 2012. On 09.10.2012,

¶27

this Court passed an interim order which reads as follows:

¶28

“For the above reasons, this interlocutory application is allowed. There shall be a stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P13 until further orders.”

¶29

Contempt Case (Civil) No.1585 of 2012

¶30

-2-

¶31

Instead of reinstating the petitioner, the employer

¶32

filed W.A. No.1842 of 2012. The learned Division Bench of this Court directed:

¶33

“The status quo obtained as on 09.10.2012 in relation to the implementation of Ext.P13 order will continue for a period of three weeks from today. During that period, the first respondent is free to challenge Ext.P13, if he is so advised.”

¶34

Nevertheless, the petitioner has never been reinstated. In the meanwhile, the disciplinary proceedings, initiated on the strength of the second charge-sheet, resulted in the petitioner’s removal from service. Those proceedings, however, are not our concern in this contempt case.

¶35

Now the petitioner filed this contempt case contending that the order dated 09.10.2012 had been affirmed by the Division Bench through its judgment, dated 14.11.2012. Yet, the employer did not reinstate the

¶36

Contempt Case (Civil) No.1585 of 2012 -3-

¶37

petitioner; so it amounted to the employer’s wilfully violating the binding judicial directive: reinstating the petitioner pending the disciplinary proceedings.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶39

Indeed, the contempt jurisdiction is quasi-criminal,

¶40

and it demands firm proof of willful disobedience of a binding judicial directive by the putative contemnor. In other words, the order to be complied with should admit of no ambiguity and its violation ought to be willful.

¶41

To our reckoning, the orders of both the learned single Judge in the writ petition and the Division Bench in the writ appeal have only stayed the operation of the suspension order and, later, directed the parties to maintain status quo .

¶42

The employer has contended that by the time the learned single Judge stayed the order of suspension, the employer had enforced it. The employer, therefore, asserts that there had been no occasion for it to turn the clock back,

¶43

Contempt Case (Civil) No.1585 of 2012 -4-

¶44

as the very order had never been suspended in its entirety. Even the Division Bench, according to the employer, has only ordered that the status quo be maintained as obtained on 09.10.2012.

¶45

Regardless, from the rival contentions, we do gather that the order of the learned single Judge—for that matter, the judgment of the learned Division Bench—would lend to, regrettably, dual interpretation: that the order getting stayed would amount to having the preexisting position restored—status quo ante; or, that the order ceased to operate from the day it was stayed— status quo in presenti . The order, in the first place, has not been suspended so as to reckon as if it had never existed—a legal fiction, though. What further compounds our difficulty is that the Division Bench has ordered only status quo to be maintained.

¶46

As the orders give rise to ambiguity, and a genuine one at that; it is difficult to appreciate that the respondent

¶47

Contempt Case (Civil) No.1585 of 2012

¶48

-5-

¶49

has been guilty of any willfully disobeying the judicial directives. We acknowledge that the employer could have— and, perhaps, ought to have—reinstated the petitioner. But, still, we cannot rule out the element of ambiguity in the directive.

¶50

Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt, then, should go to the employer. As a corollary, we hold that no contempt is made out and, accordingly, close the contempt petition.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

ANTONY DOMINIC ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

kns/-

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Contempt Case (Civil) No.1585 of 2012 -6-

V.K.Nityanandan v. S. Ratnakumaran, Managing Director, Kerala State Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Nityanandan v. S. Ratnakumaran, Managing Director, Kerala State Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jimmy Joseph Vs Sukumaran

K.G.Muraleedhara Menon Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Janaki Amma

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Komalavally

P. Gangadhara Alva Vs Icar - Central Plantation Crops Research Institute

Palakkad Jilla Bus Operators Association Vs Government of Kerala