Quashed

Sreekumar v. Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC19 May 2017WP(C)/11295/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court deferred action taken under a specific show cause notice issued to a pump operator. It directed the petitioner to approach a larger show cause notice issued under the Kerala Water Authority (Powers of Employees) Regulations, 1999, ensuring due process.

What did the court decide?

The notice under Ext.P1 is deferred pending explanation to Ext.R5(c). Petitioner must prefer explanation within 7 days and appear before 5th respondent on 1st June 2017.

Sreekumar v Vs the Kerala Water Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2017/29TH VAISAKHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 11295 of 2017 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

SREEKUMAR V AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.VISWAMBHARAN, EZHARAYIL HOUSE PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPUZHA PIN-688004 (NOW WORKING AS PUMP OPERATOR, P.H. SECTION IN PATHIYOOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PH SECTION, KAYAMKULAM, PIN-690502

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JAL BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033

¶11

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY SUB DIVISION, HARIPPAD- 690 514

¶12

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY DIVISION OFFICE ALAPPUZHA- 688001

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY P.H. SECTION KAYAMKULAM-690506

¶14

5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, SUB DIVISION HARIPPAD-690514

¶15

R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 11295 of 2017 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NUMBER P.H S7/K/5/2017 DATED 15.3.2017 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PH SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KAYAMKULAM

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20/3/2017 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.3.2017 ISSUED TO HIM BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PH SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KAYAMKULAM

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF RECORDS OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATHIYOOR PUMP HOUSE, KAYAMKULAM SECTION, HARIPPAD SUB DIVISION SHOWING DETAILS OF PERSON ON DUTY, DUTY TIME ETC.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.3.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE WTP , PATHIYOOR PLANT OPERATORS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶25

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.3.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.W.A.W.S.P HARIPPAD

¶26

EXHIBIT P5(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CWSS FOR KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY AND ARATTUPUZHA PANCHAYAT

¶27

EXHIBIT P5(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICTING THE CLARIFIERS AND THE FILTER BED

¶28

EXHIBIT P5(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.E1-308/04 DT.24.03.2017

¶29

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (POWERS OF EMPLOYEES) REGULATIONS, 1999

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶35

============================

¶36

W.P.(C) No.11295 of 2017

¶37

============================ Dated this the 19^th day of May, 2017

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner is a pump operator in the service

¶40

of the Kerala Water Authority. On the allegation that he had committed dereliction of duty, by shutting down pumping of water unauthorisedly, the Water Authority initiated action against him. It is lead to Ext.P1 notice which has been impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner has approached this Court on the allegation that Ext.P1 notice is incompetent and illegal.

¶41

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Water Authority.

¶42

Mr.Millu Dandapani, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Water Authority brings my notice to Ext.R5(c), which is the memo of charges issued to the petitioner by the 5^th respondent in which the petitioner asked to show cause as to why action should

¶43

W.P.(C) No.11295 of 2017 -2-

¶44

not be taken against him. Noticing this show cause notice, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to explain his conduct, in a manner that is available to him and that until such time all action pursuant to Ext.P1 notice should stand deferred.

¶45

In such circumstances, I direct the petitioner

¶46

to prefer his explanation to Ext.R5(c) show cause notice within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the 5^th respondent shall be obligated by the terms of this judgment to consider the same after hearing the petitioner in terms of law and to pass appropriate orders. To facilitate an early hearing in this matter, I direct the petitioner to present before the 5^th respondent on the 1^st day of June, 2017.

¶47

This writ petition is ordered.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶50

Sreekumar v. Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar v. Vs the Kerala Water Authority

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

Hotel Park Residency Vs State of Kerala

Hassainar K.M Vs State of Kerala

Sukumari S Vs State Bank of Travancore

Muhammed Basheer Vs Edavilangu Grama Panchayat

Muhammd Basheer Vs Edavilangu Grama Panchayat

Deliza Residency Vs State of Kerala