A PIL petitioner sought reinstatement for removal from service. Respondents argued lack of jurisdiction citing prior Full Bench precedent. Petitioner withdrew the petition reserving jurisdictional rights, leading to dismissal.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn with petitioner reserving right to approach jurisdictional court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 14885 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
RADEESHKUMARM.T.
AGED40YEARS
S/O.P.K.THANKAPPAKURUP(LATE),PIONEER(STANDS
REMOVED),GENERALRESERVEENGINEERFORCE,(FORMERLY
KNOWNASBORDERROADSORGANIZATION),1609PNRCOY
(GREF),LEH,LADAKHC/O.56APORESIDINGATRATHEESH
NIVAS,VARANAMP.O.,PUTHANANGADI,MUHAMA,CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA,PIN-688555.
BYADVU.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER ROADS SEEMA SADAK BHAVAN, RING ROAD, NARAINA, DELHI CANT, NEW DELHI-110 010.3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) (P) HIMANK, C/O. 56 APO PIN 931710.4 THE COMMANDER (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY), HEAD QUARTERS, 753 BORDER ROADS TASK FORCE, C/O 56 APO PIN 930753.5 THE OFFICER COMMANDING 1609 PNR COY, C/O56 APO PIN 931609. BY ADV SRI.K.THYAGARAJESWARAN, CGCTHISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON07.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.14885OF2020
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
2.Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith as Pioneer and grant all consequential benefits viz. arrears of pay and allowances, seniority, promotions, financial upgradations under MACP, and such other benefits had the petitioner would have received had he been continued in service but for removal from service.
3.Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service as Pioneer with all arrears of pay and allowances, grades, promotions, financial upgradations under MACP and such other benefits had the petitioner would have drawn had he not been removed from service; and”
action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Registrar, Indian Maritime University, Chennai v. K.G. Viswanathan and Another [2014 (4) KLT 798], this writ petition is not maintainable.
WP(C)NO.14885OF2020
3
In view of the said submission, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court, this writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
SJ
WP(C)NO.14885OF2020
4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14885/2020
PETITIONEREXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE OUT PATIENT RECORDDATED 11.5.2017 ISSUED BY GOVT. AYURVEDACOLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TOTHE PETITIONER. |
|---|---|
EXHIBIT P2 |
A TRUE OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION IN THEPRESCRIBED FORM DATED 26.6.2017 SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P3 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED26.6.2017 TO THE LEAVE APPLICATIONSUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5THRESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P4 |
A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.8.2017SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5THRESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P5 |
A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THECOURT OF INQUIRY REPORT DATED 26.9.2017. |
EXHIBIT P6 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICEDATED 22.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5THRESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
EXHIBIT P7 |
A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM DATED 8.8.2018ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THEPETITIONER ALONG WITH ARTICLES WITHCHARGES. |
EXHIBIT P8 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED14.8.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TOTHE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P9 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF SHRIRAMASHRAY PANDIT MADE DURING HISEXAMINATION BY THE INQUIRY OFFICER DATED22.10.2018. |
EXHIBIT P10 |
A TRUE COPIES OF STATEMENTS/DEPOSITION OFSHRI. RAMASHRAY PANDIT (RELEVANT PAGES)DATED 22.10.2018. |
EXHIBIT P11 |
A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT MADE BY THESHRI. CHANDAN SINGH NEGI TO THE INQUIRYOFFICER DATED 31.10.2018. |
EXHIBIT P12 |
A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.NEGIDATED 31.10.2018 DURING THE INQUIRY. |
EXHIBIT P13 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED31.10.2018 OF SHRI PRASHANTHAN K, DURINGTHE INQUIRY. |
EXHIBIT P14 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.11.2018 |
WP(C)NO.14885OF2020
5
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THEINQUIRY OFFICER. |
|
|---|---|
EXHIBIT P15 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.11.2018SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THEINQUIRY OFFICER. |
EXHIBIT P15(A) |
A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.12.2018 OFTHE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
EXHIBIT P15(B) |
A TRUE COPY OF ENVELOPE CARRYING POSTALENDORSEMENT REGARD DISPATCH AND RECEIPTOF EXT.P.159A). |
EXHIBIT P16 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED18.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TOTHE INQUIRY OFFICER. |
EXHIBIT P17 |
A TRUE COPY OF SCREEN SHORT DATED18.12.2018 OF E MAIL SEND BY THEPETITIONER TO INQUIRY OFFICER. |
EXHIBIT P18 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY ORDER SHEET FOR19.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE INQUIRY OFFICER. |
EXHIBIT P19 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THESHRI. GURVINDER SINGH, ADM OFFICER DATED19.12.2018. |
EXHIBIT P20 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY ORDER SHEETDATED 4.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE INQUIRYOFFICER. |
EXHIBIT P21 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN BRIEF DATED4.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE PRESENTINGOFFICER. |
EXHIBIT P22 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT DATED4.1.2018 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED19.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TOTHE PETITIONER. |
EXHIBIT P23 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTENOBJECTION/EXPLANATION DATED 8.3.2019SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4THRESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P24 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ADVICE DATED14.3.2019 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THEPETITIONER. |
EXHIBIT P25 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 27.5.2019SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RDRESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P26 |
A TRUE COPY APPELLATE ORDER DATED10.10.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHCOVERING LETTER DATED 15.10.2019 ISSUEDBY 4TH RESPONDENT. |
WP(C)NO.14885OF2020
6
EXHIBITP27ATRUECOPYOFTHEMONTHLYPAYSILP
3/2019ISSUEDBYTHEACCOUNTSOFFICER.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition involving service removal of a gazetted officer is maintainable in this Court given the cause of action arose elsewhere.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Registrar, Indian Maritime University, Chennai v. K.G. Viswanathan and AnotherReferred¶20
Registrar, Indian Maritime University, Chennai v. K.G. Viswanathan and Another [2014 (4) KLT 798]
Radeeshkumar M.T.
Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Defence
Director General of Border Roads
Chief Engineer (Appellate Authority)
Commander (Disciplinary Authority)
Officer Commanding 1609 PNR Coy
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court