Kunhammed C.P vs The Kerala State Handloom ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10083 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                     WP(C).No.13091 OF 2020(J)

PETITIONER:
              KUNHAMMED C.P, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALI, SENIOR
              PRODUCTION SUPERVISOR (DISMISSED) REGIONAL OFFICE,
              THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
              LTD., DYE HOUSE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -
              695 020 (PUTHENPURAYIL, KAYATHARA ROAD, THALASSERY
              VILLAGE AND TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 101.

              BY ADVS.
              DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
              SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
              SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI
              SRI.M.M.VINOD
              SMT.M.SUSEELA
              SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN
              SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K.

RESPONDENTS:
       1     THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
             LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THILLERY ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT -
             670 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

      2       THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT
              CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THILLERY ROAD,
              KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.

      3       THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM
              DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THILLERY
              ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001.

      4       THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, ADVOCATE P. V. ABHAYANATH,
              KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
              HEAD OFFICE, THILLERY ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670
              001.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
              SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
              SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
              SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
              SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 13091/20
                                         2



                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P10 order

issued by the Managing Director of the 1st

respondent-Kerala State Handloom Development

Corporation Ltd on various grounds, but

primarily that it has been issued by an

incompetent authority and that it is a non-

speaking order.

2. The petitioner says that, while he was

working in the Corporation, he was charge-

sheeted and proceeded against departmentally,

which finally led to a punishment of dismissal

being slapped against him; that he, therefore,

preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the Chairman of

the Corporation, who is the competent

Appellate Authority; and when it was not

considered, he had approached this Court and

obtained Ext.P9 judgment, whereby the Chairman

of the Corporation was directed to consider

and pass orders on the appeal.

WPC 13091/20

3. The petitioner alleges that in spite

of the specific directions in Ext.P9 judgment,

Ext.P10 order has been issued not by the

Chairman, but by the Managing Director of the

Corporation; and that too, without citing any

reason as to why Ext.P7 appeal had been

dismissed. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P10

be set aside and the Corporation be directed

to reinstate him in service forthwith.

4. In response to the afore submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner by his

learned counsel - Smt.Keerthi B. Chandran, the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondents -

Sri.Jayamohan, submitted that Ext.P10 has been

issued based on a decision taken by the

Appellate Authority, which met on 31.10.2019.

He submitted that said Authority had examined

all the relevant aspects and had found that 11

of the 14 charges were proved against the

petitioner, as per the enquiry reports and WPC 13091/20

therefore, that he does not deserve any

leniency. He, therefore, contended that

Ext.P10 is irreproachable and prayed that this

Writ Petition be dismissed.

5. I am afraid that I cannot find favour

with the afore submissions of Sri.Jayamohan

because, as is clear from Ext.P9 judgment,

Ext.P7 appeal was directed to be disposed of

by the Chairman of the Corporation in

accordance with law but the impugned order has

been issued by the Managing Director.

6. That apart, when one examines Ext.P7

appeal, the petitioner has challenged the

findings in the enquiry report in detail, but

Ext.P10 order rejects it merely by saying that

11 of the 14 charges have been found proved in

enquiry. This is not the manner in which a

statutory appeal could have been disposed of

by the competent Authority and this is

exacerbated because Ext.P10 has been issued by WPC 13091/20

an Authority which is different from the one

who was directed to consider Ext.P7 by this

Court through Ext.P9 judgment.

7. Further, it is now well-settled,

without requirement for restatement, that

every order will have to be supported by the

contents thereof and not by the pleadings to

be made when litigations are launched against

it (see for support Mohinder Singh Gill v.

Chief Election Commissioner [1978(1) SCC 405].

8. Perhaps discerning my mind as afore,

Sri.Jayamohan submitted that if this Court is

so inclined, the Chairman of the Corporation

is willing to consider Ext.P7 appeal and issue

an appropriate order thereon, without any

further delay.

9. Since I cannot find favour with

Ext.P10 for the above reasons, I deem it

appropriate that the Chairman of the

Corporation be directed to reconsider the WPC 13091/20

matter and issue a fresh order in terms of

Ext.P9 judgment.

In the afore circumstances, I allow

this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P10; with

a consequential direction to the 2nd

respondent-Chairman of the Corporation to

reconsider Ext.P7 appeal of the petitioner,

after affording him an opportunity of being

heard - either physically or through video

conferencing - thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as

is possible, but not later than one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

                                         DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
       RR                                             JUDGE
 WPC 13091/20




                            APPENDIX
       PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

       EXHIBIT P1        TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

DATED 13.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPLY DATED 21.1.2017 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 6.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S OBJECTION DATED 7.11.2018.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KSHDC/G2/PF/361/2019-20 DATED 17.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 1.8.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 1.8.2019 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P7 APPEAL.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.31305/2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KSHDC/G2/PF/1232/2019 DATED 28.02.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ENVELOP.

WPC 13091/20

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE APPELLATE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 31.10.2019 TO THE EXTENT THAT PERTAINS TO THE THE PETITIONER