T.Venugopal vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 8799 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.13095 OF 2020(J)


PETITIONER:

               T.VENUGOPAL, AGED 54 YEARS
               S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, 'ABHISREE, EDAGRAMON,
               KARUMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 002

               SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
               SRI.ARUN THOMAS
               SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
               SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
               SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
               SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
               SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL
               SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

      2        KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE SOCIETY,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SWARAJ BHAVAN,
               BASEMENT(1), NORTH BLOCK , NANATHANCODE,KOWDIAR,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003

      3        THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
               KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE SOCIETY,
               SWARAJ BHAVAN, BASEMENT(1), NORTH BLOCK ,
               NANATHANCODE,KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003

      4        THE SECRETARY,
               KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE SOCIETY,
               SWARAJ BHAVAN, BASEMENT(1), NORTH BLOCK ,
               NANATHANCODE,KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003

               SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP,
               SRI. ATHUL SHAJI - SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.13095 OF 2020(J)

                                   2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of March 2021

The petitioner, who is a Proof reader-cum-Compositor in

"Gramalakshmi Mudralayam" under the second respondent -

Kerala Rural Employment and Welfare Society (for short, 'the

Society'), was proceeded against, through a disciplinary

enquiry, on the basis of certain allegations made against him.

It appears that he was found guilty in the enquiry and the

disciplinary Authority, who is a Managing Director of the

Society, imposed a punishment upon him.

2. This punishment, according to the petitioner, was

confirmed by the Board of the Society, thus constraining him

to prefer Ext.P8 appeal before the Government, under the

provisions of Ext.P7 Articles of Association of the Society. The

petitioner alleges that, however, instead of Ext.P8 being

decided by the Government, they remitted the matter back to

the Society and incredulously, the Managing Director himself,

thereupon, issued Ext.P9 order, virtually sitting in judgment

over his own earlier disciplinary order.

3. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be set WP(C).No.13095 OF 2020(J)

aside and the Government be directed to take up the appeal

and consider it, without remitting it to the Society or to its

Board.

4. In response to the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner by his learned counsel Sri.Arun Thomas, the learned

standing counsel for the Society - Sri.Athul Shaji, submitted

that, as per Ext.P7 Articles of Association, the order of the

Disciplinary Authority will have to be appealed against before

the Board and that only, thereafter, can the matter go to the

Government. He submitted that in this case, however, the

petitioner appears to have directly approached the

Government through Ext.P8 appeal and therefore, that the

said Authority was justified in remitting it to the Board of the

Society for its consideration, as per the provisions of the

Articles. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

5. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the

submissions of Sri.Athul Shaji as afore because, even though

there is no doubt that, going by Ext.P7 Articles of Association

of the Society, an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary

Authority will lie to the Board of the Society and only WP(C).No.13095 OF 2020(J)

thereupon, can the Government exercise jurisdiction as a

Revisional Authority.

6. However, in the case at hand, the facts are certainly

peculiar and these provisions will not come to the aid of the

Society in contesting the claims of the petitioner against

Ext.P9 order. This is because, Ext.P6 is the initial order issued

by the Managing Director of the Society, wherein, it had

unequivocally recorded that the Board has already approved

the proposed punishment, as also the findings against the

petitioner. Obviously therefore, when Ext.P6 records so, it

would be absolutely untenable to ask the petitioner to

approach the Board again with an appeal and I am, therefore,

of the firm view that he was completely justified in having

approached the Government through Ext.P8 petition, styled as

an appeal. Even if this proceeding is not an appeal but only a

Revision, the content of Ext.P8 ought to have been considered

by the Government as per the Articles of Association of the

Society.

7. In the afore circumstances, I am of the certain opinion

that Ext.P9 cannot be granted approval and that the

Government must take up Ext.P8 appeal and decide the same, WP(C).No.13095 OF 2020(J)

either as an appeal or as a Revision, and issue appropriate

orders thereon as per law.

8. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P9 is

set aside; with a consequential direction to the Government to

take up Ext.P8 appeal of the petitioner and dispose it of, either

as an appeal or as a Revision, after affording an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioner, as also to the authorised officer

of the Society - either physically or through video conferencing

- thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

9. I make it clear that while the afore exercise is

completed, the Government shall consider Ext.P8

dispassionately and without, in any manner, being governed by

the contents of Ext.P9 order, which I have already quashed.

10. After I dictated this part of the judgment, the learned

Government Pleader submitted that, as per Ext.P7 Articles of

Association, the petitioner ought to have approached the

Government with a Revision within 30 days from the final

order of the Board. He submitted that the petitioner may be

directed to submit a fresh Revision, so that the Government WP(C).No.13095 OF 2020(J)

can then consider it as per law.

I am afraid that the afore suggestion of the learned

Government Pleader would not be necessary to be acceded to

by this Court because, Ext.P8 had already been preferred by

the petitioner and it had been considered by the Government

without raising any objections to it having been filed beyond

time. The fact that they had remitted the matter to the Board

would show that they had accepted Ext.P8 and had intended

that it be decided on its merits. Therefore, it is needless to say

that Ext.P8 will be considered by the Government as if it had

been filed within time.

                                          Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Stu                                                 JUDGE
 WP(C).No.13095 OF 2020(J)





                               APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A/1422/2011 (1) DATED
                    30.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2          TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL/REPRESENTATION DATED

1.2.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 3.11.2017 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 14.2.2018

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A/1422/2011 (2) DATED 04.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL/REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT AND RURAL WELFARE SOCIETY SUB COMMITTEE

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.NO.A/1422/2011 (1) DATED 4.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF RULES OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT AND WELFARE SOCIETY, TRIVANDRUM

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON 6/8/2018

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A/1422/2011(1) DATED 07.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT