Kerala Automobiles Ltd vs National Commission For ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7615 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.23915 OF 2013(L)


PETITIONER:

               KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARALUMOODU P.O,
               NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 123.

               SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
               SRI.S.A.ANAND
               SMT.L.AMMU PILLAI
               SRI.K.A.BALAN
               SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
               SMT.N.SANTHA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES,
               FLOOR VTH, LOKNAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET,
               NEW DELHI 110 003.

      2        V.PURUSHOTHAMAN
               MANALIVILA HOUSE, ANCHALIKKONAM, PARASSALA P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 502.

               SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
               SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
               SRI.P.A.AHAMMED
               SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
 WP(C).No.23915 OF 2013(L)

                                            2


                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of March 2021

This writ petition has been filed by the Kerala

Automobiles Ltd. (for short, 'the company'), impugning

Ext.P7(a) order of the first respondent - National Commission

for Scheduled Castes, as per which, the second respondent -

Sri.V.Purushothaman has been directed to be reinstated in

service and the Action Taken Report in such regard to be

submitted before them within fifteen days.

2. Sri.Peter Jose Christo, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, submits that Ext.P7(a) has been issued by the first

respondent without competence or jurisdiction, particularly

because the disciplinary action against the second respondent

has now culminated in a punishment of dismissal from service

and that he has now challenged the same before this Court in

W.P.(C) No.28236/2013. Sri.Peter Jose Christo then alleged

that it is without considering any of these aspects and at a

time when the disciplinary action was pending against the

second respondent, that the first respondent has issued

Ext.P7(a) and that too, without notifying them or even offering

them an opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel, WP(C).No.23915 OF 2013(L)

therefore, prays that Ext.P7(a) be set aside.

3. Sri.Thoufeek Ahamed, learned counsel appearing for

the second respondent, affirmed that even after Ext.P7(a)

order has been issued by the National Commission for

Scheduled Castes, the company proceeded against his client

with a disciplinary action and that he has been imposed with

punishment of dismissal from service. He also admitted that

his client has challenged the same in W.P.(C) No.28236/2013.

4. When I analyse the afore submissions, it is indubitable

that the impugned order, namely Ext.P7(a) issued by the first

respondent, cannot find favour in law, since it has been issued

in a rather cavalier manner without even notifying the

company or asking them for an explanation. The first

respondent - Commission appears to have solely relied upon a

preliminary enquiry report, wherein disciplinary action

against another employee had been recommended, but finding

that no such action had been taken as ordered and further

steps against the second respondent cannot be taken forward.

5. It is needless to say that such a decision could not

have been taken by the first respondent -Commission,

particularly when the company was acting as per the WP(C).No.23915 OF 2013(L)

applicable Rules and Regulations and especially because it is

now admitted that the said action has culminated in an order

against the second respondent, the validity of which is

pending consideration before this Court in W.P.(C)

No.28236/2013.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and

set aside Ext.P7(a); however, leaving full liberty to the rival

parties to pursue all their contentions when W.P.(C)

No.28236/2013 is heard and disposed of.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Stu JUDGE WP(C).No.23915 OF 2013(L)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.AAL/HRD-

19/2013 DATED 19.2.2013.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 27.02.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2013 IN WPC NO.5236 OF 2013 M OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

    EXHIBIT P4          COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT.

    EXHIBIT P5          COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
                        INDIA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5(A). COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.2.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE WRITTEN REPORT WITH ITS ANNEXURES DATED 08.06.2013.

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.V-10/KERALA-

1/2013/SSWII DATED 13.08.2013 OF THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

EXHIBIT P7(A) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24.07.2013 BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES.