Kerala High Court
Bindu S vs The Director Of Industries And ... on 24 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943
OP(KAT).No.87 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA (EKM) NO.242/2021 DATED 04.02.2021 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
BINDU S.,
AGED 48 YEARS, INDUSTRIES EXTENSION OFFICER,
KUNNUMMAL BLOCK, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 101,
RESIDING AT ROHINI APARTMENT, FLAT NO.C3,
AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-680 003.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
SHRI.ANAND GOKULDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
3RD FLOOR, UNIVESITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
2 THE ASSITANT DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER,
TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKKODE-673 101.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL , GOVT.PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No.87 OF 2021 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS & K. BABU, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
O.P.(KAT) No. 87 of 2021
[arising out of order dated 04.02.2021
in O.A. (Ekm) No.242/2021 of K.A.T., TVPM]
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March 2021
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The prayers in the aforecaptioned original petition, filed
under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as
follows (see page No.16 of the paper book of this op):-
"i) To set aside Exhibit P1 order of the Hon'ble Kerala
Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (Additional
Bench at Ernakulam) in so far as it declines the prayer for
directing the respondents to recall the order of suspension.
ii) To pass an order directing the 3 rd respondent Government
to recall the order of suspension of the petitioner.
iii) Such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."
2. Heard Sri.C. Harikumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in the original petition/the sole
applicant before the Tribunal and Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal,
the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
in the original petition/respondents in the O.A. before the
Tribunal.
3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P2 original
application, O.A. (Ekm) No.242/2021, filed by the petitioner
herein (the original applicant) before the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal (KAT), Ernakulam Bench, are as follows:- (see page
No.39 of this paper book):-
"i) To set aside the Annexure A5 order.
ii) To direct the 3rd respondent to consider Annexure A6 appeal
within a timeframe and revoke the suspension of the
applicant.
iii) Such other reliefs as the Tribunal may deem fit in the
interest of justice."
4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides has now
rendered the impugned Ext.P1 final order dated 04.02.2021 in
O.A.(Ekm) No.242/2021, whereby it has been ordered in
paragraph Nos.6 & 7 thereof that Anx.A6 statutory appeal filed
by the original applicant before the 1 st respondent in the O.A.
under Rule 22 of the KCS(CC&A) Rules so as to challenge
Anx.A5 suspension order, may be considered and orders
thereon may be passed within 2 months, etc. (see page Nos.23 &
24 of this paper book). It is this order at Ext.P1 that is under
challenge before us.
5. It will be pertinent to refer to paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of
Ext.P1 order as given on internal pages 4 & 5 thereof (see pages
23 & 24 of the paper book) , which read as follows:-
"6. Aggrieved by Annexure A5 order of suspension, the
applicant has preferred Annexure A6 statutory appeal before the
first respondent, under Rule 22 of KCS (CC & A) Rules. The
learned counsel for the applicant seeks a direction to the first
respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Annexure
A6 appeal within a time frame to be fixed by this Tribunal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned Government Pleader, the Original Application is disposed
of directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate
orders on Annexure A6 appeal, within a period of two months
from a date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made
clear that we have not gone into the merits of the contentions
raised by the applicant in this Original Application, and they are
left open to be considered by the first respondent."
6. A reading of paragraph No.6 of Ext.P5 order would
give an indication that the applicant himself had sought for a
direction of the Tribunal, to ensure that consideration an
disposal of Anx.A6 appeal is rendered by the competent
authority of the 1st respondent in the O.A. within a time limit
that may be fixed by the Tribunal. A reading of the said final
order at Ext.P1 would also give an impression as if none of the
abovesaid submissions made by the petitioner so as to impugn
Ext.P5 suspension order on merits has been seriously advanced
before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, from a reading of
the pleadings and materials on record, it may be difficult for us
to find fault with the verdict of the Tribunal as per Ext.P1
whereby the relief has been confined only for direction for
consideration and disposal of Anx.A6 statutory appeal filed
against Anx.A5 statutory order.
7. Having said so, we also see prima facie force in the
submissions of the petitioners/applicant that though the arrest
and remand of the petitioner, much later after the first
suspension order may technically be a different cause of action as
far as the second suspension order is concerned inasmuch as the
first suspension order was pursuant to contemplated disciplinary
proceedings. The factum of the matter appears to be that the
sum and substance of the allegations which forms the basis of the
first suspension order as well as the second suspension order at
Anx.A5 appears to be the same set of factual allegations. It is
common ground that the first suspension order was revoked and
the petitioner was reinstated in service. The crime in this case
was registered against the petitioner as accused as crime
No.1016/2018 of Thrissur Town East Police Station as early as on
06.12.2018 which was later transferred and reinstated by the
Thrissur Town West Police Station, as crime No.120/2019 on
01.02.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 &
201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The first suspension order
as per Anx.A1 was rendered on 23.10.2018 and it was revoked
and the applicant was reinstated in service on 05.10.2019. As of
now no materials are placed before us by the respondents to
show that Police had faced with any serious impediments or
hurdles in arresting and seeking the remand of the petitioner at
the earlier point of time though the crime was registered as early
as on 06.12.2018. If diligent steps have been taken by the Police
seeking the arrest and remand of the petitioner/accused at the
much earlier point of time and possibly, the arrest and remand
period would have covered the first suspension period of the
petitioner. If that be so, possibly the prolongation of the second
suspension order of the petitioner on the basis of the delayed
arrest and remand of the petitioner in the very same crime may
not have been necessary at all.
8. A reading of the bail order at Anx.A4 would also
indicate that no reasons are advanced by the prosecution therein
as to why the Police had taken such a long time to effectuate the
arrest and seek remand of the petitioner even though the crime
was registered as early as on 06.12.2018.
9. The prolongation of the second suspension order now
faced by the petitioner on account of the delay of the Police in
seeking her arrest and remand, may, prima facie, appear to be
rather arbitrary or unnecessary. We are not pronouncing any
final opinion in that regard, as the full facts are not before us.
However we would direct that the competent authority of the
Government while considering the statutory appeal filed by the
petitioner as per Anx.A6 should seriously consider the said
aspects now advanced before us by the learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioner.
10. We have only made prima facie observations and our
observations cannot be construed as in any manner, either
condoning alleged act of the petitioner which led to the
registration of the crime. All what is to be indicated is that as a
matter of fact, prima facie, there may be no valid grounds for the
Police in delaying the effectuating the arrest and remand of the
petitioner eventhough the crime was registered as early as on
06.12.2018, then the necessity and justification of the
prolongation of the second suspension order will have to be
seriously considered by the competent authority of the
Government as the appellate authority. The issue is as to the
necessity of prolonging the suspension order any longer.
11. The Tribunal has fixed 2 months' time for the
consideration and disposal of Anx.A6 appeal. The Tribunal has
pronounced the verdict at Ext.P1 as early as on 04.02.2021, now
more than 6 weeks are over. Hence, we would order that the
competent authority of the Government shall consider and pass
orders on Anx.A6 appeal, without much delay, preferably within
a period of 4 weeks, at any rate, in an outer time limit of 6 weeks
from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment,
and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. The
directions and orders of the Tribunal at Ext.P2 will stand
modified as above. The issue is whether the prolongation of the
second suspension order is really necessary.
12. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this
judgment before the competent authority of the Government,
who is in seisin of Anx.A6 appeal.
With these observations and directions and with the said
liberty, the above original petition will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. BABU,
JUDGE
Skk//29032020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
OA(EKM) NO.242 OF 2021 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
(ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM)
DATED 04.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN OA (EKM)
NO.242 OF 2021 ON THE FILE OF THE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
TOGETHER WITH EXHIBITS FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 02.02.2021.
ANNEXURES PRODUCED ALONG WITH O.A.
(EKM) NO.242 OF 2021
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF
SUSPENSION NO.DIC/15842/2018-EDI
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
23.10.2018 SUSPENDING THE APPLICANT
FROM THE SERVICE.
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN
OA(EKM) NO.410 OPF 2019 OF THE
HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (CAMP
SITTING, ERNAKULAM) DATED
22.08.2019.
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DIC/15842/2018-ED1 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.10.2019.
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BA
NO.8587 OF 2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA DATED 15.12.2020.
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DIC/15842/2018 ED1 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.12.2020.
ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
APPEAL WITHOUT ANNEXURES PROFFERED
BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 16.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE TO THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION SERVED ON
THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 20.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE
SHOW CAUSE PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
BY REGISTERED POST DATED 16.03.201.
