K.C.Sunilkumar vs Kozhikode Municipal Corporation
2021 Latest Caselaw 1807 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

      MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/28TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.24610 OF 2017(A)


PETITIONER:

               K.C.SUNILKUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS,
               S/O. LATE RARUKUTTY, SENIOR CLERK,
               REVENUE (NON-TAX) WING,
               KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
               BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT
               KANDAYYALIL VEEDU, MANIPURAM P.O.,
               KODUVALLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 572.

               BY ADV. SRI.LEYO SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

      2        THE SECRETARY,
               KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
               BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

      3        THE MAYOR,
               KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
               BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

      4        THE ADDL. SECRETARY,
               KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
               BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

               R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.24610/2017

                                 2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of January, 2021

The petitioner who was a Senior Clerk in the 1 st

respondent-Municipal Corporation is before this Court

seeking to direct the 2nd respondent not to initiate recovery

proceedings against the petitioner based on Ext.P4. The

petitioner seeks further to declare that he is not bound to

pay `1,10,000/- as demanded by the respondents.

2. The petitioner states that he joined service in the

year 2003 and had 14 years of continuous service. While

he was working as Senior Clerk, revenue recovery

proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Ext.P1

memo was issued on the petitioner. After receiving Ext.P3

reply from the petitioner, the 1 st respondent passed Ext.P4

order finding that the petitioner has not been diligent in WP(C)No.24610/2017

doing his duties and the omissions on the part of the

petitioner has resulted in gross loss or money from the

accounts of the 1st respondent. On these premises, the

respondents passed order to recover an amount of

`1,10,000/- from the salary of the petitioner, as a

punishment. It was directed that the recovery should be

made in 11 equal instalments.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents.

4. The learned Standing Counsel strongly opposed

the contentions of the petitioner and pointed out that it was

evidently the omissions of the petitioner that has resulted in

gross loss of fund from the account of the 1 st respondent

Corporation. Due to un-diligence of the petitioner, public

money has lost. In the circumstances ample justification is

to recover the amount from the salary of the petitioner. WP(C)No.24610/2017

5. However, it is evident that Ext.P4 has been

passed without a confronted disciplinary proceedings. No

enquiry was made against the petitioner before passing

Ext.P4 order, having severe civil consequences on the

petitioner. The pleadings do not show that the petitioner

was given reasonable opportunity to defend the charge

memo. No documents were marked nor any witness was

examined. There is nothing on record to show that the

petitioner was offered an opportunity to examine witnesses

or to adduce evidence. In the circumstances, Ext.P4 order

cannot stand the scrutiny of law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is set

aside. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential

benefits.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd WP(C)No.24610/2017

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 14.07.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 08.09.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 22.09.2016.TRUE COPY OF THE

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.11.2016.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.12.2016.