Kerala High Court
K.K.Manoj vs Chairman Cum-Managing Director, The ... on 16 January, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 26TH POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 35881 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
K.K.MANOJ
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. LATE K.K KUTTAPPAN, KOTTEKUDIYIL HOUSE,
KOCHUTHUVOLA P.O, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
KERALA - 685514.
BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
RESPONDENTS:
1 CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL SMALL
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD
NSIC BHAVAN, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI - 110 020.
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD., S-67,
G.C.D.A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE,
KOCHI - 682031.
BY ADV Millu Dandapani - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 35881 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
This case presents a very interesting factual and forensic scenario because the petitioner, who was a former employee of the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (NSIC), seeks that the expenses which he had incurred for defending a Crime registered against him, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), with respect to certain actions which he had committed or conducted while he was in service with the said Corporation, must be reimbursed to him.
2. Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that his client left the service of the NSIC in the year 2007, to join the IDBI Bank; but that, he was then summoned by the CBI to their Office in Kochi, to answer a charge against him with respect to his actions while he was in service of the 'NSIC'. He submitted that his client, therefore, had to make several such visits; and that since he was then, subsequently, made an accused to defend the case, only to be exonerated later, he preferred Ext.P10 representation before the 'NSIC' seeking reimbursement of the expenses which he had to incur for having defend a Crime registered against him solely with respect to his duties and obligations with them, while he was in their service. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P10 be directed to be taken up WP(C) NO. 35881 OF 2022 3 and disposed of by the 'NSIC' in terms of law.
3. Sri.Millu Dandapani - learned Standing Counsel for the NSIC, however, submitted that the petitioner cannot seek any amount from his client as a matter of right since, he is not their employee any more. He explained that, even at the time when the CBI summoned him - either as a witness or as an accused - he was not serving the 'NSIC' in any manner, but was working with the IDBI Bank, from whom, he took permission to defend the case and to attend the hearings. He submitted that hence, the claim of the petitioner for 'travelling allowance' is untenable and that this has been informed to him, through Ext.P14 proceedings, which he said was, in fact issued in reply to Ext.P10. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. As I have already said in the prefatory paragraph of this judgment, the facts involved in this case are rather peculiar. The petitioner seeks reimbursement of the expenses which he had to incur to defend a Crime registered against him by the CBI, allegedly for certain actions which he had done while he was serving the 'NSIC'. He, however, concedes that all such expenses were incurred by him much after he left the 'NSIC', while he was working with the IDBI Bank. Obviously, therefore, this cannot be a claim for reimbursement WP(C) NO. 35881 OF 2022 4 of 'travelling allowances' as has now sought to be impelled by the learned counsel for the petitioner; but for the expenses which he says he was forced to suffer, solely because of certain responsibilities which he discharged while serving the 'NSIC'.
5. It is needless to say that a claim for 'travelling allowance' by a person who is not in service, can, prima facie, be not countenanced, since once he had resigned from the 'NSIC', to join the IDBI Bank, the connection between him and his former employer had been snapped; and a claim for reimbursement of "travelling allowances" cannot be normally ordered to be honoured by them.
6. Going by he tenor of the pleadings and the submissions made at the Bar, it is clear that what the petitioner requires is reimbursement of the expenses he had to suffer for defending a case, saying that the allegations levelled against him were only in connection with his status of an Officer of the 'NSIC'. Indubitably, if he has any such claim, he will have to prove it in a competent Civil Court and obtain a decree; but cannot approach this Court seeking that Ext.P10 be directed to be disposed of by the 'NSIC', particularly because they are now resisting it for the reasons said by them in Ext.P14.
7. Interestingly, the petitioner has chosen not to challenge WP(C) NO. 35881 OF 2022 5 Ext.P14, even though he was offered an opportunity by this Court to do so.
In the afore circumstances, reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke any other remedy that may be available to him before the alternative forums, this writ petition is closed.
I, however, clarify that my observations above are only tentative and solely for the purposes of this judgment; and is not intended to frustrate any remedy that may be available to the petitioner; for which purpose, all rival contentions with regard to his claim for money is fully left open.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/16.1 WP(C) NO. 35881 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35881/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE(SPE/CBI)-III, ERNAKULAM IN C.C. NO. 30/2014 DATED 14.03.2019.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.12.2007 TO SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, NSIC LTD.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.02.2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, NSIC COCHIN.
Exhibit P4 THE LETTER DATED 21.04.2008 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.05.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, ACCOUNTS OF NSIC COCHIN BRANCH.
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 12.05.2008 ISSUED BY THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI - II), ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.06.2008 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.08.2008 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY NSIC DATED 02-09-2008.
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER DATED 22-01-2020 ADDRESSED TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SEND BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE EMAIL FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE GM (L&R), NSIC DATED 14-07-2020.
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 19-08- 2020 BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.09.2020 REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT DATED 10.09.2020.