IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.3974 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER:
MANOJ KUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
SUSPENDED EMPLOYEE, CONSUMERFED, MANOJ MANDIRAM,
NELLIMUKKU P.O.KUZHIMATHICADU, KOLLAM-691 509.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MURALI MADANTHACODU
SRI.K.M.VIJAYAKUMARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION,
(CONSUMER FED) GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020,
REP. BY THE PRESIDENT.
4 KERALA STATE CO OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION,
(CONSUMER FED), GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020,
REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP BIMAL K NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.3974 OF 2020(V)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of January 2021 The writ petitioner challenges his suspension pending enquiry. During the pendency of the writ petition, enquiry report was filed by the enquiry officer. The managing committee diferred from the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer and decided to impose penalty of dismissal from service on him. Ext.P10 notice was issued to him to show cause why the penalty of dismissal shall not be imposed on him. Hence, he has filed IA No.1 of 2020 to amend the writ petition and to seek a new relief to stay the operation of Ext.P10 show cause notice.
2. When the matter was taken up, the learned Counsel for the Society submitted that prior to Ext.P10, a show cause notice was issued to him to which he submitted his objections. Thereafter, Ext.P10 show cause notice was issued to which also a detailed reply was given.
WP(C).No.3974 OF 2020(V) 3
3. After considering the detailed objection penalty was imposed by dismissing the petitioner from service. He has challenged that dismissal in an appeal it is submitted.
In the light of the above facts, I feel that no purpose will be served by retaining the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE SKP/4-1 WP(C).No.3974 OF 2020(V) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 40841/18 DATED 18.6.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.11.2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 17.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.1.2013 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF STOCK DETAILS DATED 31.3.2014 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.5.2014 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 4TH RESPONDENT REGARDING LIABILITY OF DAMAGED ITEMS DATED 21.12.2016 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY NEETHI STORE SALESMAN ASSOCIATION DATED 22.10.2016 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 10.5.2017 RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE