Kerala High Court
V.Purushothaman vs Kerala Automobiles Ltd on 7 July, 2025
2025:KER:49727
W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28236 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
V.PURUSHOTHAMAN
MANALIVILA HOUSE, ANCHALIKONAM, PARASSALA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
FORMERLY WORKING AS JUNIOR EXECUTIVE (GRADE),
KERALA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED, ARALLUMOODU P.O.,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.AHAMED
SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ARALLUMOODU P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695123.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED, ARALLUMOODU P.O.,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695123.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.K.K.RAZIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49727
W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013
2
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner entered service of the 1st respondent company as Office Assistant on 05.02.1986. Later, he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. In 2004, he was granted benefit of Junior Executive Grade.
2. On 19.2.2013, Ext.P2 show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Following misconducts were pointed out in the notice:-
1. Making false complaints against the company and fellow employees.
2. Submitting false complaints with the superiors with an intention to harass co-employees.
3. Spreading false allegations to outsiders and other authorities about the company and other employees.
2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 3
4. Commission of acts detrimental to the interest of the company and affecting the fair name and reputation of the company.
5. Mis-utilizing the position and divulging information and documents to outsiders without any authority of law and permission.
3. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 explanation dated 28.2.2013 in response to the show-cause notice. Challenging his suspension he approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.5326/2013 and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 22.5.2013 directing to complete the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner within 45 days and granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of suspension in case the proceedings were not completed within the said period.
4. In the domestic enquiry two witnesses were examined on the side of the management and 27 documents were marked. On the side of the petitioner a witness was 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 4 examined and 15 documents were marked. The enquiry officer, by his report dated 13.9.2013, concluded that the petitioner was guilty of all misconducts alleged against him as per the show- cause notice. By memo dated 23.9.2013, Managing Director of the 1st respondent called upon the petitioner to submit his response to the enquiry report. Copy of the enquiry report was also provided to the petitioner along with the memo. Petitioner submitted a reply on 30.9.2013.
5. After examining the reply of the petitioner, Ext.P19 proceedings was issued by the 2nd respondent on 18.10.2013. The 2nd respondent agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, accepted the same and concluded that the acts of misconducts committed by the petitioner were very serious and were detrimental to the interests of the company. It was also concluded that the petitioner was creating a bad work environment in the company and the management had lost the confidence reposed on the petitioner as an employee of the 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 5 company. It was noted that no extenuating circumstances justifying any lenient view were available. Observing so, the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the company.
6. As an industrial dispute was pending, the company approached the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam in M.P.No.19/13 in I.D.No.4/2011 for approval of the action taken by the management. Notice was issued by the Tribunal to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal allowed the application seeking approval and granted liberty to the petitioner to raise industrial dispute.
7. Petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P19 order by which he was dismissed from service. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner and disputing his contentions.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents dismissing the petitioner was 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 6 arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. Learned counsel contended that Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 was applicable to the petitioner and the management however conducted a domestic enquiry considering the petitioner as a workman under the I.D.Act. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the entire proceedings against the petitioner was misdirected and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was a victim of harassment on account of his social background and he was compelled to avail legal remedies in view of continuous harassment by some senior officials and other employees. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was proceeded against illegally and the motive was to throw him out of service. The learned counsel argued that, in the enquiry, no competent witness was examined by the management and the alleged misconducts were not proved. The enquiry officer proceeded with prejudices and concluded that the alleged misconducts 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 7 were proved against the petitioner. He contended that all the allegations against the petitioner were frivolous and hence the harsh punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate and unjust. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was working in a managerial post and therefore he could not have availed the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent company submitted that the petitioner was proceeded against for valid reasons. There were several serious acts of misconducts committed by the petitioner and his actions spoiled healthy work environment in the company. He also got indulged in activities resulting in tarnishing the reputation of the company. The enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice and ample opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend. Petitioner effectively participated in the enquiry and adduced evidence. The enquiry officer on a proper 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 8 analysis of the evidence arrived at the conclusion that the misconducts alleged against the petitioner were proved. The Managing Director provided copy of the report and obtained response from the petitioner. After evaluating the report and considering all relevant facts and circumstances the 2 nd respondent concluded that the continuation of the petitioner as an employee of the company became a threat to the conducive work atmosphere. Therefore, it was decided to impose punishment of dismissal. The learned counsel argued that when the Industrial Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner he did not turn up and the action taken by the management was approved by the Tribunal. Though the Tribunal granted liberty to the petitioner to raise industrial dispute, the petitioner pursued this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the company, the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and proper remedy was to raise an industrial dispute. The learned counsel further 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 9 submitted that scope of interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters arising from disciplinary actions is very limited and therefore this Court may not interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
10. The 1st respondent company disputes the maintainability of this writ petition contending that the petitioner was a workman and his remedy was to raise an industrial dispute. The respondents point out that the petitioner was not working in a managerial post and granting him the grade of Junior Executive did not make any changes in the nature of duties and responsibilities. The petitioner on the other hand relying on Ext.P1 Government Order in which post of Junior Executive was considered as a Supervisory and Managerial post submitted that the petitioner was not a workman and on the other hand he was in a managerial post. However, the specific averments of the respondents in their counter affidavit that the petitioner was a workman governed by 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 10 the certified standing orders of the company and that "Junior Executive" was only a clerical grade in the company, have not been disputed by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit. Contention of the petitioner regarding the applicability of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was also specifically denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. They stated that the company had not adopted the Rules and hence the petitioner was liable to be proceeded against, treating him as a workman. There is no denial of this assertion also from the part of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find anything improper in conducting the enquiry, considering the petitioner as a workman. Though the respondents have a contention that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable as according to them the petitioner's remedy was to invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court will not be justified in rejecting the writ petition as not maintainable at this distant point of time for not invoking the statutory remedy since 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 11 it was admitted in 2014 and has been pending for more than 11 years.
11. Petitioner has not raised any serious contentions regarding the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer. Also no case is established that the findings of the enquiry officer was not supported by any evidence. The attempt of the petitioner is to contend that findings of the enquiry officer were not correct and for advancing this contention the petitioner has been referring to the evidence on record. It is not within the scope of a writ petition to re-appreciate the evidence brought on record in a domestic enquiry, to arrive at conclusions on the basis of evidence and to substitute findings of the enquiry authority with the conclusions drawn by the court. Unless it is shown that the conclusions of the enquiry authority were so perverse or were not supported by any evidence, there is no scope for reviewing the findings and conclusions of an enquiry officer. No grave violations of the principles of natural justice or any fatal 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 12 irregularities and procedure are also established. Under such circumstances, there is no scope for interfering with the findings of the enquiry authority.
12. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and decided to impose punishment of dismissal on the petitioner after getting his response. The disciplinary authority has noticed in Ext.P19 order the reasons for not adopting a lenient view and imposing the punishment of dismissal. The authority has taken into account the impact of the acts of misconducts committed by the petitioner on the work environment in the company. It was also noted that the management had lost confidence on the petitioner as an employee of the company. The disciplinary authority hence decided to dismiss the petitioner from service after considering various relevant aspects. The discretion vested with the disciplinary authority cannot be lightly interfered with. Unless the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, no 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 13 interference is possible while exercising the power of judicial review. In the case at hand, the punishment cannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate and hence I don't find any reason to interfere with the punishment also.
In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 14 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28236/2013 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER G.O.(MS)NO,.62/2010/ID DATED 22.3.2010.
EXT.P2: COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.KAL/HRD-19/2013 DATED 19.2.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.2.2013.
EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.5326/2013 DATED 22.5.2013.
EXT.P5: COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEYYATTINKARA DATED 14.8.2013.
EXT.P6: COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 13.9.2013.
EXT.P7: COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER
BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DARTED 24.8.2013. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.KAL/HRD-19/2013/624 DATED 23.9.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9: COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.9.2013 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KAL/HRD-31/2012/184 DATED 10.2.2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT.
EXT.P11: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 29.9.11.
EXT.P12: COPY OF THE FIR NO.1643/2011 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION DATED 1.10.2011.
EXT.P13: COPY OF MEMO NO.KAL/HRD-19/2011/183 DATED 29.9.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P14: COPY OF LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 4.10.2011 TO THE MANAGER, HRD, KERALA AUTOMOBILES.
2025:KER:49727 W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013 15 EXT.P15: COPY OF WARNING NOTICE NO.KAL/HRD-20/2011/220 DATED 12.11.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P16: COPY OF EXPLANATION LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 5.2.2013.
EXT.P17: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 29.1.13.
EXT.P18: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24.7.2013 BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES.
EXT.P19: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KAL/HRD-19/2013/658 DATED 18.10.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.