Mohan K.Abraham vs Plantation Corporation Of Kerala ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5713 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

                   WP(C).No.3508 OF 2021(K)


PETITIONER :-

            MOHAN K.ABRAHAM, AGED 50 YEARS
            S/O.K.A.ABRAHAM, KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
            PUTHUPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 011.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED
            SRI.V.S.MANSOOR
            SMT.BINU K.B.
            SMT.YADUKRISHNAN N.


RESPONDENTS :-

      1     PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,
            REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 004.

      2     THE CHAIRMAN,
            PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,
            KOTTAYAM - 686 004.

            BY ADV. SRI.N.RAJESH, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3508 OF 2021(K)

                                        -: 2 :-


                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of February, 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"i) To call for records leading to Exhibits P1 & P4 and to quash the same by Writ of Certiorari.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding respondents to reinstate petitioner into service forthwith."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner had preferred appeals as against Ext.P1 order

passed by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation. By

Ext.P2, this Court had directed the consideration of the appeals. It is

submitted that thereafter, Ext.P4 order has been passed by the

Managing Director himself stating that a hearing had been conducted

and that there is no reason for deviating from the earlier order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

action of the Managing Director of the Plantation Corporation in

considering the appeals as against his own order is completely

untenable. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals are liable to be

considered either by the Board or a properly constituted committee.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that the petitioner had been heard and that all WP(C).No.3508 OF 2021(K)

his contentions had been properly considered by the Managing

Director before Ext.P4 order was passed.

6. However, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances

of the case, I find that Ext.P1 order had been passed by the 1 st

respondent himself and that the consideration of the appeals by the

same authority vitiates the entire proceedings.

7. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P4 is set aside. There

will be a direction to the Board of the respondent Corporation or any

duly authorised sub-committee of the Board to consider the appeals

preferred by the petitioner as directed in Ext.P2. Orders shall be

passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be heard afresh by the

authority which considers the appeals and appropriate orders shall be

passed.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/22.2.2021 WP(C).No.3508 OF 2021(K)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.P&A/F/4510 DATED 24.10.2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.8.2020 IN WP(C)16503/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.1.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE