Disposed

A.Suresh v. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC6 Sept 2021WP(C)/17624/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the pendency of his disciplinary appeals. The Court, accepting the petitioner's claim despite the lack of documentary proof, directed him to produce copies of the appeals within 15 days. It ordered the Board of Directors to consider them as filed on time and decide them within two months.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to produce copies of appeals within 15 days; Board of Directors to consider appeals as filed on time and pass orders within two months.

A.Suresh Vs Kerala State Beverages… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17624 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

A.SURESH AGED 44 YEARS S/O.ANANDAN, RESIDING AT NALUTHENGILTHEKKATHIL, RAMANCHERY, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA 690 535

¶8

BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN S.R.PRASANTH BHANU THILAK

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD.

¶11

REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶12

2 CHAIRMAN

¶13

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M), CORPORATION LTD., BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶14

3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M), BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶15

4 GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M), BEVCO TOWER, VIKASBHAVAN P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶16

NAVEEN. T. SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 17624 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner herein, aggrieved by the disciplinary action against the petitioner is stated to have filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Managing Director and Ext.P17 appeal before the same authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that though major penalties have been imposed on him, the appeal is still not disposed of.

¶22

Vehemently opposing the application, the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd., contended that there is absolutely no record to show that the respondents have received these two appeals. It was also contended that the appeals are stated to have been filed in 2016 and 2017 respectively and it cannot be believed that they have not pursuing it for a considerable long time. Yet another contention advanced by the learned standing counsel was that, the Service Rules 1986 is applicable to the employees of the Kerala State Beverages

¶23

¶24

WP(C) NO. 17624 OF 2021

¶25

(M&M) Corporation Ltd. Rule 88 provides that an appeal

¶26

against the order passed by the Managing Director shall be preferred before the Board of Directors within a limitation of such a case.

¶27

It seems that against the penalties imposed on the petitioner no other appeals have been preferred by the petitioner. It is also unusual that there is nothing on record that these applications have been pending since long. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to salvage this by contending that the petitioner has been approaching the authorities since the filing of these appeals. Even in the absence of any material to show that these appeals were preferred before the authorities, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner shall produce a copy of Ext.P9 and Ext.P17 appeals, addressed to the Board of Directors, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon, the Board of Directors shall consider

¶28

¶29

WP(C) NO. 17624 OF 2021

¶30

the appeals as if they have been statutorily filed on time, receive it and pass appropriate orders on merits. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the

¶31

date of receipt of Ext.P9 and Ext.P17 appeals.

¶32

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

R.AV

¶36

WP(C) NO. 17624 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17624/2021

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 19.8.2014 HAVING NO.AE3/22055/2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 4.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FILE NO.AE3/22055/2014
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.9.2015 HAVING FILE NO.AE3/22055/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 15.10.2015
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OBTAINED THROUGH RIGHT TO INFORMATION DATED 12.2.2018
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.2.2016 IN FILE NO.AE3/22055/2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.4.2016 IN FILE NO.AE3/22055/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DATED 31.5.2016 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DATED 31.5.2016 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 14.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT HAVING FILE NO.AE-3/32584/2014

¶41

WP(C) NO. 17624 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE SEND BY THE PETIT RESPONDENT.	REPLY DATED 29.1.2015 IONER TO THE 3RD
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE 25.8.2015 ISSUED HAVING NO.AE3/325	MEMO OF CHARGES DATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT 84/2014.
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE 17.9.2015 SEND BY 2ND RESPONDENT	REPLY LETTER DATED THE PETITIONER TO THE
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE 19.6.2017 HAVING NO.AE3(B)/32584/2 RESPONDENT.	SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED FILE 014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF THE HAVING ORDER NO.3 3RD RESPONDENT	ORDER DATED 22.11.2017 2584/AE3(B)/KSBC OF THE
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY OF THE PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT	APPEAL DATED 28.11.2017 PETITIONER BEFORE THE
Exhibit P17	TRUE COPY OF THE PREFERRED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT	APPEAL DATED 28.11.2017 PETITIONER BEFORE THE

A.Suresh v. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Suresh v. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

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

Sharmila v. Vs the State of Kerala

Anoopa C.K. Vs the Chief Engineer (Hrd and General)

Sunil Kumar R., Vs the Kerala Shipping and Inland Navigation Corporation Ltd. - Ksinc

Tom Mathew Vs the Union of India

T.K.Radhakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

Rahul a. Vs the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (M & M) Ltd., (K.S.B.C.)