Kerala High Court
Ajitha Kumari vs South Malabar Gramin Bank on 17 March, 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2012/9TH SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 16059 of 2005 (J)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
1. AJITHA KUMARI,AGED 41 YEARS,
W/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN, `USHANILAYAM',
MALAYAMPARAMBATH, ARIYALLUR P.O.,MALAPPURAM DIST.
2. SHIKMA RAVI M.P., AGED 19 YEARS,
D/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN, `USHANILAYAM',
MALAYAMPARAMBATH, ARIYALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST.
3. SHIKHIL RAVI M.P., AGED 14 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN, `USHANILAYAM'
MALAYAMPARAMBATH, ARIYALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST.
(MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, AJITHA KUMARI).
4. PADMINI P., AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SEKHARAN, `USHANILAYAM',MALAYAMPARAMBATH,
ARIYALLUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------------
1. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. THE CHAIRMAN (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY),
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MALAPPURAM.
3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.K.M.ANEESH
SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C)NO.16059/2005
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AWARDED TO LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN
DATED 17/3/1994
P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AWARDED TO LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN
DATED 27/11/1999
P3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AWARDED TO LATE RAVEENDRANATHAN
DATED 27/11/1999
P4 COPY OF THE MEMO SUBMITTED BY RAVEENDRANATHAN TO THE CHAIRMAN
VIDE NO.13/2001 DATED 26/3/2001
P5 COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14/6/2001 ISSUED TO LATE
RAVEENDRANATHAN BY RESPONDENT
P6 COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 13/8/2001 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
TO RAVEENDRANATHAN
P7 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY RAVEENDRANATHAN TO
THE RESPONDENT
P8 COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 26/5/2003
P9 COPY OF THE DETAILED REQUEST PLACED BEFORE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
ON 12/6/2003 BY RAVEENDRANATHAN
P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/8/2003 SUBMITTED BY
RAVEENDRANATHAN
P11 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DATED
16/10/2003 IMPOSING PENALTY OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT TO
RAVEENDRANATHAN
P12 COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY RAVEENDRANATHAN DATED 11/11/2003
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN
P13 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/2/2004 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
REJECTING THE APPEAL
P14 COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 28/2/2004 BEFORE THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS BY RAVEENDRANATHAN
P15 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO GET
THE BENEFIT OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
sts 2/-
-2-
WP(C)NO.16059/2005
P16 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/06/2004 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
AUTHORITIES REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
P17 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATED
16/7/2004 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER'S
P18 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/12/2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.16059 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the widow, children and mother of late M.P. Ravindranathan who was an employee of the 1st respondent bank. While he was alive, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which resulted in the punishment of removal from service. Against that punishment, he filed Ext.P12 appeal, which was rejected by Ext.P13 order. Against that, the said Sri. Ravindranathan filed Ext.P14 review petition. That was rejected by Ext.P18 order without hearing the legal heirs on the ground that the question of hearing has become superfluous on account of the unfortunate death of late Ravindranathan. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i. call for the records and proceedings relating to Ext.P8, P11, P13, P16 and P18 and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or in the alternative ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, W.P.(C)No.16059 of 2005 -2- order or direction directing the respondents to reconsider Ext.P9, P10, P12, P14, P15 and P17 afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard to substantiate their contentions.
iii. Declare that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits of compassionate appointment under the dying- in-harness scheme.
iv. to declare that the death of the delinquent pending consideration of the appeal or review (pending final orders) will not abate the proceedings since the orders passed will affect the legal heirs"
2. The contention of the petitioners is that if they succeed in the review petition and the removal from service is set aside, then one of the petitioners would be eligible for compassionate employment in the bank. They submit that if they were given an opportunity of being heard in the review petition they could have persuaded the authority considering the same to decide in their favour.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the Bank also.
4. The contention of the Standing Counsel is that rules do not provide for a personal hearing in review petitions. The petitioners contend that if the cause of action survives even after the death of the employee, because of the death the respondents cannot refuse to hear the legal W.P.(C)No.16059 of 2005 -3- heirs in the review application filed by the deceased.
5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The decision in the review petition has very serious civil consequences not only on the deceased but also his legal heirs. That being so, notwithstanding any provision for personal hearing in the rules, I am of opinion that the respondents ought to have passed orders on Ext.P14, only after affording an opportunity of being heard to the 1st petitioner or her representative. Accordingly, Ext.P18 is quashed on that ground. The authority competent to consider Ext.P14 review petition shall consider and pass orders on the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the 1st petitioner or her representative, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/