Disposed

Sunil Kumar v. the Food Corporation of India

Kerala HC22 Mar 2018WP(C)/4166/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an ex-parte disciplinary inquiry where he was denied representation by a lawyer. The Court directed respondents to permit the petitioner to submit a representation requesting permission to appear through a lawyer within one week before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to permit petitioner to submit a representation within one week to appear through a lawyer before proceeding.

Sunil Kumar Vs the Food Corporation of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4166 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O BHASKARA PILLAI, ATHULLYA, PVN F2, PILLAVEEDU NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM POST, TRIVANDRUM, PIN- 695 004

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM- 695 004

¶11

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM- 695 004

¶12

R1 & R2 BY SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SC,

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

bp 27/3/2018

¶15

WP(C).No. 4166 of 2018 (U)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBITP1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26-06-2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11-01-2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20-06-2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23-07-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-08-2017 IN WPC NO.10026/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ESTT.30(4)/2017 DATED 13-10-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING NO.DEP/B SUNIL KUMAR/AG-1/2017 ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRING AUTHORITY AGAINST THE PETITIONER

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

bp 27/3/2018

P.V.ASHA J.

W.P.(C).No.4166 of 2018

¶25

------------------------------------- Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2018

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Petitioner, who had been working as an Assistant Gr.I under the first respondent, has been on leave since the year 2012 in order to join his wife at U.K. Even though, the leave was sanctioned from time to time till 22.12.2016, the respondents issued Ext.P3 order cancelling the same and directed him to report for duty on 01.07.2016. He thereupon submitted Ext.P4 application seeking voluntary retirement. By Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C).No.10026 of 2017, this Court directed the respondents to pass orders on his application. Thereafter Ext.P6 order was passed on 13.10.2017, informing him that the request for voluntary retirement cannot be acceded to since

¶28

W.P.(C).No.4166 of 2018

¶29

¶30

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. It was followed by Ext.P7 notice directing him to appear for preliminary hearing scheduled on 29.01.2018 in respect of the disciplinary action initiated against him. This writ petition is filed alleging that the request made by the petitioner to appear through Lawyer was not allowed insisting his personal presence and respondents are proceeding with the disciplinary action the respondents are acting in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶31

The respondents have in their counter affidavit stated that even though petitioner was granted leave till 22.12.2016, since an original suitO.S.No.358 of 2016 is filed before the Munsiff's Court Nedumangad for realisation of a sum of Rs.3,37,560/from the petitioner along with interest, in which FCI was also made a party, the Corporation found that it would not be in public interest to keep the petitioner outside granting him extra ordinary leave and

¶32

W.P.(C).No.4166 of 2018

¶33

¶34

therefore, the leave granted to the petitioner was cancelled, directing him to rejoin duty on 01.07.2016. But the petitioner did not rejoin duty and requested for voluntary retirement. It is stated that his request was again considered and was rejected as per Ext.P6 order, since disciplinary proceedings were already initiated against the petitioner. It is stated that the action of the petitioner warrants disciplinary action under Regulation 32 of FCI Staff Regulations and CCS (Leave) Rules. Apart from this, it is stated that petitioner had availed loan from the Employees Co-operative Society and two employees-a Driver Gr.I and a Picker who stood as surety for him have submitted representations before the respondents on 16.06.2015 and 26.06.2015 requesting to recover the amount due from the petitioner to the Society from the benefits due to the petitioner.

¶35

Having considered the rival contentions, it is seen that the the grievance of the petitioner in

¶36

W.P.(C).No.4166 of 2018

¶37

¶38

this writ petition is that he was not permitted a hearing through a Lawyer, in his absence and thus his opportunity to defend is defeated. Petitioner has stated that his Lawyer though reported before the respondents on 22.12.2017, he was not permitted to appear for petitioner and they proceeded with the enquiry ex-parte and it was posted on 09.01.2018 as per Ext.P7.

¶39

However, it is seen that the petitioner has not submitted any representation before the authority to permit him to appear through Lawyer; at any rate, no such representation is produced in this writ petition.

¶40

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents that in case petitioner submits a representation requesting for permission to appear through Lawyer, within a period of 'one week' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the respondent shall consider it

¶41

W.P.(C).No.4166 of 2018

¶42

¶43

favourably and further proceedings initiated against

¶44

him shall be taken only thereafter.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶47

Sunil Kumar v. the Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. the Food Corporation of India

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

Shiji Kumari Vs Shri a. Shajahan IAS

Dr.K.S.Rajeev Vs Kerala Financial Corporation

Santhosh T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Anish K.S. Vs Augustine Thomas

Usha Nair Vs the Panmana Grama Panchayat

K.Ramesh Babu Vs Union of India