Partly allowed

R.Malini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Feb 2018WP(C)/5362/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court kept the termination orders of a contract Accounts Officer in abeyance, holding that she was entitled to be heard before such stigmatizing drastic action was taken, directing a vigilance inquiry to be concluded within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination orders kept in abeyance; Respondents directed to complete inquiry within two months and decide on reinstatement.

R.Malini Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5362 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

R.MALINI, WIFE OF SASIKUMAR R., AGED 42 YEARS, ACCOUNTS OFFICER (UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION), KERALA STATE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HORTICORP), VENPALAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT NANDANAM VPS 102-B., VATTAVILA, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 006.

¶8

BY ADV.SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. KERALA STATE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT

¶12

CORPORATION LIMITED (HORTICORP), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, UDAYAGIRI, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012.

¶13

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN,

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 5362 of 2018 (U)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

----------------------EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY ON 22/05/2005 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 17/08/2005 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE 106TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONVENED ON 30/01/2013 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT APPOINTMENT EXECUTED ON 19/07/2017 BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.216/A/KSHPDC//2005/353 DATED 12/02/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.216/5651/P.U.I/2018/AGRI DATED 02/02/2018 ADDRESSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

TS 27/02/2018

P.V.ASHA J.

-------------------------- ------------

¶26

W.P.(C).No.5362 of 2018

¶27

--------------------------------------- Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner, who is an Accounts Officer under

¶30

the 2^nd respondent, Kerala State Horticultural

¶31

Products Development Corporation Limited (Horticorp), is challenging Exts.P5 and P6 orders by which her services are terminated from 14.02.2018.

¶32

The Horticorp issued Ext.P5 order on 12.02.2018 on the basis of direction issued by the Government in Ext.P6 on 02.02.2018. In this letter, Government had informed the Managing Director of the 2^nd respondent, that the Special Vigilance of the department, has in its enquiry found serious dereliction of duty on the part of petitioner in discharging her official duties as Accounts Officer.

¶33

The contention of the petitioner is that,

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C).No.5362 of 2018

¶36

she has been working as Accounts Officer right from

¶37

2005, though on contract basis on the basis of agreements executed from time to time. Her appointment was made after conducting a selection based on Ext.P1 advertisement and she has not committed any irregularity or misconduct since then and there is no reason for terminating her services. It is also pointed out that, her case was recommended for regularisation and several of the employees in the Horticorp who commenced service even subsequent to her had already been regularised.

¶38

It is her further case that the termination

¶39

in the nature of Exts.P5 and P6 casts a stigma on her and such termination without conducting any enquiry or

¶40

even a notice is illegal even against a contract employee; the contract period based on which the petitioner worked will expire only on July,2018.

¶41

The learned Government Pleader on

¶42

instructions, submitted that the recommendation for

¶43

W.P.(C).No.5362 of 2018

¶44

¶45

regularisation of petitioner was already rejected. It is pointed out that there was a Vigilance enquiry against the petitioner in the year 2015 and the said enquiry is still pending. The present Vigilance enquiry relates to a transaction with M/s.Green Meadows Agri Horti Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Since the irregularities found are of serious nature, it was found necessary to terminate the service of the petitioner, who is appointed on contract basis.

¶46

I find that petitioner who has been working from 2005, though on contract basis, cannot be sent out, if it is based on allegations of misconduct. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of Exts.P5 and P6 would show that the same casts stigma on the career of petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to be heard before such drastic action is taken.

¶47

As the petitioner is holding the post of Accounts Officer, I do not deem it appropriate to

¶48

W.P.(C).No.5362 of 2018

¶49

¶50

direct her re-instatement. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P6 orders are kept in abeyance. Respondents are free to proceed against the petitioner consistent with the principles of natural justice. If such proceedings are initiated against her, the same shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The respondents are free to pass appropriate orders on the question of reinstatement or otherwise of the petitioner in the meanwhile.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶53

R.Malini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Malini v. State of Kerala

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

Saramma Koshi Vs Mohan Kumar

T.M. Dinesh Kumar Vs Dr. Satheesan Balasubrahmanyan

Dr. Kala.T.v Vs M.R. Unni

Badarul Muneer Vs K.K.Roy Kurian

Shylaja P a Vs Sri.a.Shajahan

V.P.Prasadu Vs the Kerala Agricultural University