Partly allowed

Sunil Kumar. K.C v. Cochin Port Trust

Kerala HC10 Mar 2021WA/433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against a judgment imposing a penalty of withholding increments were disposed of. The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to afford a hearing to appellants, consider preliminary misconduct issues, and dispose of appeals within two months.

What did the court decide?

Appellate authority directed to afford hearing, consider preliminary misconduct issue, and dispose of appeals within two months.

Sunil Kumar. K.C Vs Cochin Port Trust — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.430 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2020 IN WP(C) 17373/2015(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

M.P.RAMESH AGED 55 YEARS SAFETY INSPECTOR, FIRE SERVICE, CPT STAFF NO.4229, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN AND RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.M5/2,SEAGULL STREET,BEHIND CASINO HOTEL,WILINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN,PIN-682009.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 COCHIN PORT TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, WILLINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN, PIN-682009.

¶14

2 DEPUTY CONSERVATOR, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN,PIN-682009.

¶15

3 DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, COCHIN, PIN-682009.

¶16

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON R1-R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2021, ALONG WITH WA.433/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.A Nos.430 & 433 of 2021

¶19

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶25

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶26

WA.No.433 OF 2021

¶27

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2020 IN WP(C) 28048/2016(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶28

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶29

SUNIL KUMAR. K.C FIREMAN, STAFF NO 13139, CPTFS, S/O.SHRI.K.K.CHANDRAN, MANIMANDIRAM HOUSE, ST.RITA'S ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O. PIN-682 019.

¶30

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR

¶31

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶32

1 COCHIN PORT TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN, PIN-682 009.

¶33

2 DEPUTY CONSERVATOR, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN, PIN-682 009.

¶34

3 DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, COCHIN, PIN-682 009.

¶35

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON R1-3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)

¶36

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2021, ALONG WITH WA.430/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

W.A Nos.430 & 433 of 2021

¶38

¶39

ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.

¶40

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

¶41

W.A No.430 of 2021

¶42

[ arising out of the judgment dated 08.10.2020 in W.P(C) No.17373/2015 ]

¶43

¶44

W.A No.433 of 2021

¶45

[ arising out of the judgment dated 08.10.2020 in W.P(C) No.28048/2016 ]

¶46

=========================== Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2021

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶49

Heard Sri.Rajesh Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these two cases and Smt.Latha Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Port Trust appearing for the respondents in these appeals.

¶50

Sri.Rajesh Nair, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these cases would urge that it is indisputable that the Enquiry Officer has found in Ext.P-20 enquiry report as produced in W.P(C)No.17373/2015 (which has led to W.A No.430/2021), that both the appellants stands exonerated of all the charges raised against them. But inspite of the conclusive finding of the Enquiry Officer, the

¶51

W.A Nos.430 & 433 of 2021

¶52

¶53

disciplinary authority for no valid reasons has digressed from the said considered findings in favour of the applicants and has proposed to find the appellants as guilty of the charges and has also proposed to impose the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect for two years, as per Ext.P-21 as produced in W.A No.430/2021. Further that, the learned Single Judge has not considered the specific contention of the appellants that even the admitted charges in the memo of charges will not constitute a misconduct, inasmuch as the alleged disputes have emanated between the appellants on the one hand and one of their close relatives, who happens to be an employee of the respondent as well as his wife on the other hand, etc. and that this Court may decide that even the admitted allegations of memo of charges will not constitute misconduct as far as the appellants are concerned and that the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned common judgment of the learned Single Judge to this limited extent, etc.

¶54

Per contra , Smt.Latha Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Port Trust appearing for the respondents would submit that in pursuance of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in these W.P(C)s, the disciplinary authority has already complied with the directions therein and has issued

¶55

W.A Nos.430 & 433 of 2021

¶56

¶57

Annexure-A5 order dated 14.12.2020 as produced in I.A No.2/2021 in W.A No.430/2021, whereby both the appellants have been imposed with the penalty of withholding of increments for six months without cumulative effect, which according to the respondents is only a minor penalty and that the said penalty is appealable before the appellate authority as per the Rules. Further that, the appellants herein have already filed separate appeals before the appellate authority and one such appeal is Annexure-A6 produced in W.A No.430/2021. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant in W.A No.430/2021 has already been promoted to the next category of post and he is retiring from service on 31.03.2021.

¶58

In the light of these subsequent developments, it is ordered that the appellate authority concerned will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the appellants through their authorized representative/counsel, if any, and then, should pass considered orders on the said appeals as against the impugned penalty orders and in the said process, should also consider the preliminary issue, as to whether the admitted allegations of the memo of charges would constitute misconduct, as per the relevant service Rules and may also thereafter, decide the other issues raised in the appeal, without

¶59

W.A Nos.430 & 433 of 2021

¶60

¶61

much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the abovesaid contention of the appellants that even going by the admitted allegations in the memo of charges, the same will not constitute misconduct as against the appellants going by the applicable service norms and Rules, is left open to be raised and decided before the appellate authority and also in other appropriate proceedings, in the manner known to law. The directions and orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgments in these W.P(C)s, will stand modified to the above extent.

¶62

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeals will stand disposed of.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶65

Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE

¶66

vgd

¶67

W.A Nos.430 & 433 of 2021

¶68

¶69

APPENDIX OF WA 430/2021

¶70

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶71

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER (NO.P/S/25/2016/S DATED 23.06.2016)ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY(DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT)

¶72

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SUNIL KUMAR K.C.AS PER CORRESPONDENCE N.DC/APPEAL/KCSK/2016 DATAED 19.07.2016.

¶73

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B2/RTI/SKKC/2016-D DATED 17.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶74

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED NOTICE (NO.E1/DISC ACTION/MPR AND SKC/2015-D) DATED 16.11.2020 RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 17.11.2020.

¶75

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.E-1/DISC ACTION/MPR AND SKC/2014-D DATED 14.12.2020.

¶76

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 23.12.2020 SANS EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Sunil Kumar. K.C v. Cochin Port Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar. K.C v. Cochin Port Trust

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

V.S.Vijayan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

R.Ajai Chandra Vs the Director

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Sreelakshmy v.

Vijay Keshav Gokhale Vs K.S.Sindhu

C.P.Reghukumar Vs Union of India

Sibi Thomas Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board