Kerala High Court
Lalaji.D vs State Of Kerala on 4 October, 2012
Author: Harun-Ul-Rashid
Bench: Harun-Ul-Rashid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/12TH ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 10514 of 2012 (L)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
LALAJI.D, AGED 46 YEARS
ASSISTANT MANAGER, MATSYAFED DISTRICT OFFICE
KASARAGOD-671 121.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
SRI.ALAN PAPALI
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
SRI.V.K.BIJU
RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD (MATSYAFED)
KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, MATSYAFED
BY SMT.K.P.SANTHI,SC, MATSYAFED
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN FOR R1
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-10-2012,
ALONG WITH WPC. 10489/2012 & WPC. 10611/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 10514 of 2012 (L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION NO.4086/2010 ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT CONTROLLER DTD. 30.12.2010.
EXT.P2: MAINTENANCE REPORT DTD. 1.8.2011.
EXT.P3: MAINTENANCE REPORT DTD. 10.8.2011.
EXT.P4: MAINTENANCE REPORT DED. 19.8.2011.
EXT.P5: MAINTENANCE REPORT DTD. 6.1.2012.
EXT.P6: REPORT NO.NIL DTD. NIL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE SPECIAL
SECRETARY, FINANCE.
EXT.P7: RETAIL OUTLET INSPECTION AND ANALYSIS REPORT DTD. 18.5.2011
OF THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION.
EXT.P8: CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE DTD. 16.12.2011 INCLUDING THE
DIESEL BUNK, SAKTHIKULANGARA OF THE MATSYAFED IN THE GOLD
CIRCLE OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION.
EXT.P9: EXTRACT FROM THE MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY
THE OIL MARKETING COMPANIES AS TO THE PERMISSIBLE STOCK
VARIATION.
EXT.P10: SCHEDULE OF THE STOCK STATEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF
SEPTEMBER, 2011.
EXT.P11: STOCK VERIFICATION REPORT DTD. 31.3.2011 OF THE DIESEL BUNK,
SAKTHIKULANGARA.
EXT.P12: STOCK VERIFICATION REPORT DTD. 31.3.2011 OF THE DIESEL BUNK,
NEENDAKARA.
EXT.P13: STOCK VERIFICATION REPORT DTD. 31.3.2012 OF THE DIESEL BUNK,
SAKTHIKULANGARA.
EXT.P14: CERTIFICATE OF VERIFICATION DTD. 10.1.2012 OF THE CONTROLLER
OF LEGAL METROLOGY.
EXT.P15: ORDER NO.M'FED./E1/ 4983/11 DTD. 21.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
(CNTD......2)
WP(C).No. 10514 of 2012 (L)
::2::
EXT.P16: OFFICE ORDER NO.M'FED./E1/4983/2011 DTD. 23.6.2012.
EXT.P17: NOTINGS BY THE GENERAL MANAGER AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
IN THE CASH BOOK OF THE DIESEL BUNK AT CHERUVATHUR,
KASARAGOD.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
....
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
------------------------
W.P.(C).NoS.10514,10489
& 10611 Of 2012
----------------------
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.10514/2012 is the Assistant Manager in the service of Kerala State Co-operative Federation for fisheries Development Ltd. (Matsyafed). The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.10489/2012 is the District Manager retired from the service on 31.5.2012. The petitioners in W.P.(C).No.10611/2012 are the Salesman and sales assistant respectively, in the service of Matsyafed. The writ petitions are filed challenging the suspension order dated 21.4.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent. Petitioners are aggrieved by the said order passed by the Managing Director, Matsyafed.
2. The contention raised in the writ petitions is that the suspension order is vitiated by dictation from the Government as well as the Director of Fisheries, who is the Registrar. Quoting a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohammed Kutty v. Secretary to Government (2002(1) KLT 880) the petitioners contended that neither the Government nor the Registrar has no ::2::
W.P.(C).NoS.10514,10489 & 10611 Of 2012 power to direct the Co-operative Society to suspend an employee. Therefore, it is pleaded that the suspension order is a malafide act of victimisation and discrimination. Petitioners were issued with memo of charges and statement of allegations vide order dated 17.5.2012 of the 2nd respondent. Petitioners submitted statement of defence on 23.5.2012. The statement was considered by the administrative committee on 25.5.2012 and it was resolved to hold an enquiry into the allegations. The General Manager was appointed as enquiry officer. Ext.P16 is the copy of the order dated 23.6.2012 appointing the enquiry officer. There is a direction to the enquiry officer to conclude the enquiry within a time limit of two months. It is averred in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.10514/2012 that even after the two months time stipulated, the enquiry officer has never commenced any proceedings. The grievance of the petitioners is that a direction may be issued to the 2nd respondent to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings are concluded within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
::3::
W.P.(C).NoS.10514,10489 & 10611 Of 2012
3. When the matter was taken up for final hearing today, the counsel for the petitioners requested this Court that a direction may be issued to the 2nd respondent to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings are concluded within a time to be fixed by this Court. The petitioners limited their prayer in the writ petitions for the time being for a direction to conclude the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible.
4. The enquiry officer was appointed as per Ext.P16 order (in W.P.(C).No.10514/2012) dated 23.6.2012. Petitioners were placed under suspension as per order dated 21.4.2012. The 2nd respondent in Ext.P16 order appointing the enquiry officer directed the enquiry officer to hold the enquiry, conclude the same and submit a report within a period of two months It is pointed out that the enquiry officer has not even commenced any proceedings till date.
In the facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners are ::4::
W.P.(C).NoS.10514,10489 & 10611 Of 2012 concluded within a period of three months from today. All the contentions raised by the parties are left open. If the enquiry is not concluded and report not submitted within the time as prescribed above, the petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.
bkn/-