Partly allowed

The State of Kerala v. M. Sugadhakumar

Kerala HC13 Oct 2020OP(KAT)/325/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition challenges an interim stay order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal regarding a suspension of a Municipal Secretary. The High Court declines to interfere with the interim stay but directs the Tribunal to consider the Government's reply and pass a final order within three weeks. The case is disposed accordingly without elaborate reasoning.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal is directed to consider the reply statement of the Government and pass a final order within three weeks. The impugned interim order is not interfered with.

The State of Kerala Vs M. Sugadhakumar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942

¶7

OP(KAT).No.325 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM)1102/2020 DATED 26-08-2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 4:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT, SWARAJA BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.

¶12

SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH- SR.GOVT. PLEADER.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 8 & 9:

¶14

1 M. SUGADHAKUMAR, S/O. LATE. M. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, WORKING AS MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY MALAPPURAM 676 503. HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT 12/255, RITHA RAMANATHAPURAM GRAMAM, NEAR SIVA TEMPLE, PALAKKAD HEAD POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-678 001.

¶15

2 THE KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAKKAL P.O. MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE, PIN-676 503.

¶16

3 THE CHAIRMAN, KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAKKAL P.O. MALAPPURAM,

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

R1 BY ADV.K. MOHANAKANNAN. R2 & R3 SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL, SC.

¶19

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP (KAT) No.325/2020

-2-

J U D G M E N T

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶24

Shaffique, J:

¶25

This original petition has been filed challenging an interim order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.1102/2020.

¶26

The 1^st respondent herein was placed under suspension as per Annexure-A10 order dated 27-06-2020 alleging violation of the Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1960. The allegation was that the delinquent officer had acquired an air conditioner at the expense of a third party. The Tribunal however stayed Annexure-A10 order for a period of 6 weeks, inter alia observing that the Government did not file any counter and further on the prima facie inference, that the air conditioner was not purchased by the Municipal Secretary for installation at his private residence, but was purchased by the 3^rd respondent Municipal Chairman, for which, payment was effected by a third party and it was installed in the camp office-cum-residence of the Municipal Secretary.

¶27

While impugning the order, learned Government Pleader submits that there is no concept of a camp office for the

¶28

OP (KAT) No.325/2020

¶29

-3-

¶30

Municipal Secretary and the said explanation itself cannot be accepted. Further it is clear from the materials placed on record that one Mujeeb Rahman had paid the value of the air conditioner which was installed in the premises of the delinquent officer, and the contrary finding of the Tribunal erroneous.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Sri. Noushad Thottathil, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality. Apparently, this is case in which the Tribunal had only stayed operation of Annexure-A10 order for a period of 6 weeks. The Government was given an opportunity to file reply statement.

¶32

At this stage we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the contentions in so far it is only an interim order passed by the Tribunal for a specified period staying operation of Annexure-A10 order.

¶33

Learned Government Pleader submits that the officer had on the very next day assumed charge of the office and his presence in the office will affect the enquiry proceedings. It is brought to our notice that the charge memo is ready to be served on the delinquent officer.

¶34

OP (KAT) No.325/2020

¶35

-4-

¶36

Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the impugned order is only for a specified period, the Tribunal has to consider whether the impugned order is to be sustained, taking into account all the facts and circumstances involved in the matter. Under such circumstances, we do not think it necessary to interfere with the impugned order, Ext.P3. However, we direct the Tribunal to consider the reply statement of the Government and pass a final order in the matter within a period of 3 weeks

¶37

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

O.P (KAT) is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMG

OP (KAT) No.325/2020

-5-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF O.A. ANNEXURES.	EKM NO. 1102/2020 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE POSTING VIDE G.O. 28.06.2017.	ORDERS OF APPOINTMENT AND RT NO. 2151/2017/LSGD DATED
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 30.11.2019.	G.O.(RT). NO. 2709/2019/LSGD
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 05.1.22019	G.O.(RT) NO. 2762/2019/LSGD ISSUING ORDERS OF TRANSFER.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE 16.01.2017.	G.O. NO. 15/2017/LSGD DATED
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF THE 2767/15 OF TE RES	16TH NUMBERED DECISION (E2 PW2- OLUTION DATED 04.01.2020.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF THE 19353/19, OF THE	10TH NUMBERED DECISION GI- RESOLUTION DATED 27.04.2020.
ANNEXURE A7	TRUE COPY OF THE 01.04.2020.	RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED
ANNEXURE A8	TRUE COPY OF THE UNDER SECTION 406 ACT.	ORDER DATED 11.06.2020 ISSUED (2) OF THE KERALA MUNICIPALITY
ANNEXURE A9	TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER EFFECTIVELY ASSIS THEY CLAIMED THAT MINISTER FOR LOCA	DOCUMENT WHICH SUPPLIED AS THE BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT WHICH THEY GOT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE L SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.
ANNEXURE A10	TRUE COPY OF THE 27.06.2020.	G.O. RT NO. 1276/220/LSGD DATED
ANNEXURE A11	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 25.06.2020F	REPROT BEARING NO. C-2212/2020 ORWARDED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A12	TRUE COPY OF THE LIMITED VS. RDS P REPORTED IN 2013	DECISION RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER ROJECT LIMITED AND OTHERS (1) SCC 524.
ANNEXURE A13	TRUE COPY OF THE VS. DISTRICT COLL REPORTED IN 2012	DECISION IN RAVI YASHWANT BHOIR ECTOR, RAIGAD AND OTHERS (4) SCC 407.

¶51

OP (KAT) No.325/2020

¶52

-6-

¶53

ANNEXURE A14	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN SOMESH TIWARI VS UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2009 (20 SCC 592.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R5-1	A TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 28.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE KANNAMKANDY FRIDGE CENTRE, KOTTAKKAL TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE AIR CONDITIONER.
ANNEXURE R5-2	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF MUJEEB RAHMAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF THE COST OF AIR CONDITIONER.
ANNEXURE R5-3	A TRUE COPY OF THE DIGITAL TRANSACTION STATEMENT MADE BY MUJEEB RAHMAN TO THE ACCOUNT OF KANNAMKANDY FRIDGE, CENTRE, KOTTAKKAL.
ANNEXURE R5-4	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ASSET/ STOCK REGISTER OF KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH ERNAKULAM DATED 26.08.2020 IN OA EKM NO. 1102/2020.

The State of Kerala v. M. Sugadhakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Kerala v. M. Sugadhakumar

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

Smt.Nayana Dev.a Vs Union of India

V. Ramachandran, Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Subramanyan Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Fabeena.K.K.

Dr. Aswathi Joseph Vs State of Kerala

The Medical Director Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences