Partly allowed

M.Arifa Beevi v. the Chairman, Kerala State Handloom Deve

Kerala HC6 Jan 2020WP(C)/2041/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging dismissal from service, this Court held that the appellate authority rejected the petitioner's appeal without disclosing reasons as previously directed. The impugned order setting aside the dismissal without reasons was set aside, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the appeal after affording a hearing opportunity within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Ext.P16 order set aside; Board of Directors to reconsider appeal after hearing within two months; orders to state reasons as per Ext.P13 judgment.

M.Arifa Beevi Vs the Chairman, Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(C).No.2041/2010-E

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

MONDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 16TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.2041 OF 2010(E)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

M.ARIFA BEEVI, FORMERLY STORE KEEPER,

¶10

KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT THOPPIL HOUSE, MUKKALAKKAL,, KAZHAKKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SMT.V.J.SAFEENA SMT.SHALEENA RAJAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR-1.

¶15

2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEAD OFFICE, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR-1.

¶16

3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR-1.

¶17

4 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.J.ANAND R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P(C).No.2041/2010-E

¶21

¶22

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶23

W.P(C) No.2041 of 2010-E

¶24

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2020

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner, who was working as a Store Keeper in the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `Corporation' for short), has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P10 by which she was dismissed from service and also Ext.P16 order by which the appellate authority rejected her appeal. It is stated that the petitioner had been working under the Corporation for 30 years since the year 1977. Ext.P2 memo of charge was issued on 8.2.2006 alleging deficit in physical stock at regional office store for a sum of Rs.99,521.65 stating that she was responsible for the same. It is also alleged that she committed misappropriation of Corporation funds by mishandling the stock. After the enquiry was conducted on the basis of Ext.P2 memo of charges, another memo Ext.P3 was issued to her on 2.3.2007 alleging deficit to the tune of Rs.49,139/- in the stock verification for the year 2005-06. Subsequently proceedings were issued placing the petitioner under suspension as per Ext.P4 order dated 28.4.2007 pending finalisation of liabilities for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Orders were already issued to her directing to remit a sum of Rs.99521.65. Enquiry was

¶27

W.P(C).No.2041/2010-E

¶28

¶29

conducted into the memo of charges relating to the deficit of stock for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07. In the enquiry she was found guilty of the charges relating to deficit in stock worth Rs.49,139.05 and Rs.2476.30 for the year 2006-07 for misappropriation of the same amount. By Ext.P10 order the disciplinary authority accepted the findings, and stating that the management lost confidence in her, awarded the punishment of dismissal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 appeal before the Board of Directors. In Ext.P13 judgment this Court directed the respondents to consider her appeal and to pass an order giving reasons in support of its conclusions. It is stated that thereafter a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. It is thereafter that by Ext.P16 order the Manager Director communicated the decision of the Board of Directors informing that the appellate authority which met on 13.10.2009 examined all aspects of the matter and further noted that the total stock deficit committed by the petitioner comes to Rs.1,51,137/- and therefore came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal submitted by her. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P17 revision petition.

¶30

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that disciplinary action initiated against her for the stock deficit found for the year 2004-05 to the tune of Rs.99521.65 and the petitioner did not have any complaint as against that and rather she admitted the guilt. It is stated that order Ext.P10 was passed on

¶31

evidence and it was further found that she has misappropriated a sum of Rs.51,615.35. It is stated that the notices were issued directing her to remit the

¶32

W.P(C).No.2041/2010-E

¶33

¶34

amount misappropriated along with interest. The respondents have stated that the Board of Directors took the decision on the appeal after she was given an opportunity of hearing and they had produced the hearing note.

¶35

On consideration of the pleadings and the contentions on both sides, it

¶36

is seen that this Court had in Ext.P13 judgment directed the respondents to consider the appeal submitted by the petitioner and to pass orders giving reasons in support of its conclusions. Ext.P16 order does not disclose any reasons for rejection, as directed by this Court. Therefore the Board of Directors shall reconsider Ext.P15 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months, dehors – decision if any taken on Ext.P17 revision petition. The orders shall be passed as directed in Ext.P13 judgment stating the reasons therein. Ext.P16 order is set aside enabling the respondents to pass fresh orders.

¶37

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶39

rtr/

¶40

W.P(C).No.2041/2010-E

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶44

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3.1.2006 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT, REGIONAL MANAGER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CUM CHARGE MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 8.2.2006.

¶45

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE FINDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY. EXT.P3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT ON 2.3.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.4.2007.

¶46

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO DATED 25.7.2008.

¶47

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 22.7.2008.

¶48

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION TO T HE PETITIONER ON 7.10.2008.

¶49

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION.

¶50

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.35161/2008.

¶51

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G2/580/2312/08 DATED 11.12.2008 OF THE COMPANY DISMISSING THE PETITIONER.

¶52

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31.12.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

¶53

EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 22.6.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶54

EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.7.2009 IN W.P(C).NO.21378/09 (N).

¶55

EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION HANDED OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN ON 13.10.2009 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶56

EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.10.2009 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶57

EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G2-580/898/09 DATED 23.10.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶58

EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 17.11.2009 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶59

EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT REPRESENTATION DATED 11.11.2009 OF THE THREE APPROVED ORGANISATIONS.

¶60

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶61

EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTE SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶62

EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR'S ORDER NO.G2/580/898/09 DATED 23.10.2009.

M.Arifa Beevi v. the Chairman, Kerala State Handloom Deve

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Arifa Beevi v. the Chairman, Kerala State Handloom Deve

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

George.M.E Vs Union of India

Valsan Kunholoathillath, Vs State of Kerala

Sarojam.N, Vs Kerala State Council for Science

Arjunan Vs Union of India

Janardhanan K. Vs Union of India

Deepthimol Varghese Vs Kerala Public Service Commission