Kerala High Court
R.Jaikrishnan Nair vs Board Of Directors Of The Alleppey on 27 August, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 22878 of 2013
----------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
R.JAIKRISHNAN NAIR,
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (LATE),
AGED 46 YEARS, KRISHNA SREE,
CHANDRAMANGALAM, EAST ARPOOKKARA,
KOTTAYAM.
BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADVS.SMT.SMITHA S.PILLAI
SMT.ALICE THOMAS
SMT.M.C.SINY
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ALLEPPEY
CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD.,
KAREELAKULANGARA P.O., KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA - 690 572,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE HANDLOOM AND TEXTILES DIRECTORATE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R1 BY SRI.K.ANAND (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN
R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUNIL KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10-08-2018 ALONG WITH WPC.23870/2013 & WPC.25761/2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 22878 of 2013 (H)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
----------------------
EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2013
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DIPLOMA
IN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DATED 24.09.1985.
EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.07.2013
ISSUED BY THE MALAPPURAM CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS SHOWING
THE QUALIFICATION OF MANAGING DIRECTOR AS DIPLOMA IN TEXTILE
TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.07.2013
ISSUED BY THE KANNUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS SHOWING
THE QUALIFICATION OF GENERAL MANAGER AS DIPLOMA IN TEXTILE
TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.06.2013
ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. SHOWING
THE QUALIFICATION OF GENERAL MANAGER AS DIPLOMA IN TEXTILE
TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P7. A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.06.2013
ISSUED BY THE SITARAM TEXTILES LTD. SHOWING THE QUALIFICATION
OF GENERAL MANAGER AS DIPLOMA IN TEXTILE TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P8. A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.06.2013
ISSUED BY THE TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS SHOWING
THE QUALIFICATION OF MANAGING DIRECTOR AS DIPLOMA IN TEXTILE
TECHNOLOGY.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
21.08.2018.
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P.(C) Nos.22878/2013-H, 23870/2013-G,
25761 of 2013-U
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2018
JUDGMENT
All these writ petitions are filed by the very same person, who was working as General Manager in Alleppey Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd and hence are disposed of by this common judgment.
WP(C) No.22878 of 2013
2. Petitioner, who was working as the General Manager of the Alleppey Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd ('Alleppey Mill' for short), filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 notice issued by the 2 nd respondent - Director of Handlooms and Textiles dated 27.8.2013 by which it was directed that the original certificates relating to educational qualification (SSLC to BBA) as well as experience of the petitioner shall be made available in the office of the 2nd respondent through a special messenger, for verification. He has also sought for a declaration that the 2 nd respondent - Director of Handlooms and Textiles, who is not his appointing authority is incompetent to issue Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner, who was appointed as General Manager by the Government.
3. Government filed a counter affidavit stating that the 2 nd respondent issued the notice on directions from the Government. The W.P.(C) Nos.22878/2013-H, 23870/2013-G, 25761 of 2013-U 2 claims and contentions of the petitioner are controverted explaining the circumstances under which such directions were issued as well as those under which the petitioner was appointed and regularised as General Manager.
4. However, I find it unnecessary to go into those contentions, because the 2nd respondent has not proceeded further with Ext.P1 notice. The Government had appointed the Joint Secretary of Industries Department to enquire into the qualifications claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, no decision is called for in this writ petition as it has already become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly W.P(C).No.22878 of 2013 is dismissed. WP(C) No.23870 of 2013
6. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging Ext.P12 order appointing the 4th respondent as General Manager of the Alleppey Co- operative Spinning Mills on deputation basis. Petitioner's contention is that the appointment of the 4th respondent in his place is illegal. The petitioner claimed that he was the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of the Mill and his appointment and regularization were made in accordance with the provisions contained in the bye-law. His contention is that the W.P.(C) Nos.22878/2013-H, 23870/2013-G, 25761 of 2013-U 3 appointment of the 4th respondent is made by the Government without any recommendation from the Board of directors of the Alleppey Co-operative Spinning Mills and there is no resolution of the Board recommending appointment of the 4th respondent.
7. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that Ext.P12 order was passed in accordance with the provisions contained in clause 29 of the bye-law of the 1st respondent, according to which, the appointment of the General Manager is to be made by Government in consultation with the Chairman. It is also stated that the Board of Directors have already passed a resolution recommending the appointment of the 4 th respondent and the same was communicated to the Government by the Chairman as per letter dated 25.09.2013. It is stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.R1(a) order dated 28.09.2013 pending enquiry into the correctness and genuineness of the qualifying certificates of the petitioner relating to his BBA and MBA. It is also stated that the petitioner was appointed as General Manager considering his higher qualifications in BBA and MBA.
8. Ext.P12 order is challenged on the ground that there is no recommendation for the same from the 1st respondent. From the counter W.P.(C) Nos.22878/2013-H, 23870/2013-G, 25761 of 2013-U 4 affidavit of the respondents it is clear that the appointment is made by the Government; it is also seen that the 1st respondent has on 25.09.2013 communicated the resolution recommending the appointment of the 4 th respondent. Therefore, there is no basis for the contention raised by the petitioner. The petitioner, who was placed under suspension as per Ext.R1(a) order, is subsequently seen reverted to his parent mill. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right to challenge the appointment of another person as General Manager.
9. Therefore WP(C) No.23870 of 2013 is dismissed.
W.P(c).No.25761/2013
10. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order issued on 28.9.2013 by which the Government placed the petitioner under suspension. In this order it was stated that on receipt of several complaints against the educational qualification of the petitioner, the Government had directed the Director of Handloom and Textiles to conduct an enquiry and on enquiry through the Managing Director, it was found that the petitioner had claimed that he got MBA from University of Mumbai in 2009; whereas University of Mumbai as per its letter dt.20.7.2013 informed that they do not conduct such a course and have not issued any certificate relating to MBA Course and requested to W.P.(C) Nos.22878/2013-H, 23870/2013-G, 25761 of 2013-U 5 inform the nearby Police Station for investigation. It was stated that based on such information and the request made by the Mumbai University, the Director of Handloom and Textiles requested the Government to dismiss the petitioner from service and to conduct a detailed investigation into the academic qualification claimed by the petitioner as requested by the University of Mumbai. In these circumstances, the Government decided to place the petitioner under suspension subject to enquiry. In this order it was stated that he would be eligible for subsistence allowance as per rules.
11. The case of the petitioner is that the cooked up complaints against him and the order of suspension are all because of the personal vengeance of M/s.J.Ambady and R.Biju, who are working in the Mill, as he had issued show cause notices to them in connection with an incident of their misbehaviour towards a lady Supervisor who was the convenor of Ladies Grievance Cell. It is his case that based on the written complaint of that lady Supervisor, disciplinary action was proposed against them. In protest against it, the employees started strike from 16.05.2013 onwards. The 2nd respondent misused his power to wreak vengeance against the petitioner and forwarded a report to the Government. It is stated that the Government had ordered an enquiry into the allegation against the petitioner W.P.(C) Nos.22878/2013-H, 23870/2013-G, 25761 of 2013-U 6 and he had to take leave in August and September, 2013. At the time when this writ petition was filed, W.P(C).No.19973/2013 filed by him against the said enquiry was pending. The petitioner submitted that the Director of Handlooms thereafter issued notice dated.27.08.2013 directing him to produce the qualifying certificates obtained by him, which he challenged in W.P.(C) No.22878 of 2013.
12. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the incident relating to the show cause notice issued by the petitioner does not have any connection with the suspension of the petitioner. The petitioner, who was a Maintenance Supervisor in Trichur Co-operative Spinning Mill, was appointed as General Manager on deputation and thereafter he was absorbed taking note of the qualification he had furnished. It is stated that as per the bye-laws of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent is the authority competent to place him under suspension. It is also stated that in the normal course the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as General Manager. He did not have 4 years' experience in a private mill; he was given a quick jump to the post of General Manager. The qualification prescribed for the post is MBA with 10 years experience. It is stated that the main aspect considered for his appointment was the MBA qualification. According to W.P.(C) Nos.22878/2013-H, 23870/2013-G, 25761 of 2013-U 7 the respondents, the petitioner was prima facie found to have produced fake certificates which required investigation. It is stated that Ext.P7 order is passed pending enquiry and the enquiry would be conducted in accordance with law with all its seriousness. Subsequently as per order dated 24.04.2014, Government revoked his suspension and re-instated him by reverting him to the parent mill, Trichur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd,. That order of re-instatement is under challenge in W.P(c).No.12153/14.
13. The order of suspension is seen issued by a competent authority in the light of serious allegations into the qualifications claimed by the petitioner and based on which the petitioner was appointed. Therefore, when an inquiry was contemplated, into serious allegations, which goes to the very route of his appointment in Alleppey Mill, the order placing the petitioner under suspension cannot be said to be illegal.
From the pleadings and contentions on both sides, I find that the order of suspension does not suffer from any illegality. Hence W.P.(C) No.25761 of 2013 is dismissed.
Sd/-
(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/rkc