Molamma Jose vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 22649 Ker

W.P(C).18273/2021
                                    1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
   FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 18273 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

             MOLAMMA JOSE, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. JOSE, KUTTIKKATTU
             HOUSE, KORUTHODU P. O., PALLIPPADI, MUNDAKKAYAM,
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686513.

             BY ADVS.
             K.S.ARUN KUMAR
             BINDU MOHAN
             AMRUTHA P S
             AMRUTHA K P
             VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
             RAJEE P MATHEWS



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF LSGD,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

     2       DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685 001.

     3       KORUTHODU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KORUTHODU P. O.,
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 513.

     4       MEDICAL OFFICER IN CHARGE
             KORUTHODU PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE, KORUTHODU P. O.,
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 513.

             BY ADV ARUN SAMUEL



OTHER PRESENT:
 W.P(C).18273/2021
                                2

             GP V VENUGOPAL




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).18273/2021
                                    3


                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner herein joined as an Ashaworker in ward No.4 of

respondent/panchayath in 2007. She continued to work there.

However, by Ext.P6 decision of the panchayath dated 01.09.2021,

fourth respondent terminated the service of the petitioner. This is

under challenge in this Writ Petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed Ext.P7 on the

ground that, she was proceeded against on a flimsy ground, she had

continuous and unblemished service since 2007 and the allegations set

up against her was absolutely false. It was also contended that, by

virtue of Ext.P7 Government Order, she is entitled to be continued in

service.

3. Panchayath has filed a detailed counter. Heard the learned

counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned

counsel for the Panchayath.

4. The stand taken by the panchayath is that, there was an

incident, in which, petitioner made several derogatory comments

against the ward members and the panchayath President, whereupon,

she was issued with a show cause notice produced as Ext.P2. She

replied it by Ext.P3. In the above reply, virtually, petitioner has

admitted the facts, though, she tried to explain her side by stating that, W.P(C).18273/2021

she has made certain comments, out of emotional outburst. She never

expected the above comments to be released to the social media.

5. Panchayath has a specific case that, pursuant to the above,

petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, by a

unanimous decision of the panchayath, she was terminated from

service and accordingly, termination order was issued by the fourth

respondent.

6. It seems that, there is a specific allegation of misconduct

against the petitioner. Virtually, in Ext.P3 reply, she has admitted the

incident. Though, she has a case that, out of emotional outburst, she

made certain comments, which was reiterated by the learned counsel

for the petitioner and sought for giving one more opportunity to

improve her conduct but no such remorse is proved from Ext.P3. Even

in Ext.P3, her stand was that, she never expected her comments to be

revealed through social media. She has also not expressed any regret

in what has transpired.

7. Having considered this and the materials on record and the

unanimous decision taken by the panchayath, the learned counsel for

the petitioner tried to take refuge under Ext.P7 G.O. dated 01.06.2021,

which directs that, since COVID II phase related activities were

progressing, contract employees are permitted to continue after the

expiry of the contractual period. In the case at hand, issue is totally W.P(C).18273/2021

different. Petitioner was posted in 2007 and continued there

thereafter. She was not involved in any COVID related activities and

evidently, Ext.P7 indicates that, it relates to non-renewal of contract on

its expiry due to misconduct and the consequential action taken

thereon.

Having considered these facts, I find no merit in the Writ Petition,

which is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna/ W.P(C).18273/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18273/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.07.2021.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN-CHARGE OF PHC, KORUTHODU DATED 30.07.2021.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DEMANDING THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 11.08.2021.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DEMANDING THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 25.08.2021.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF EXPELLING THE PETITIONER FROM THE POST OF ASHA WORKER DATED 01.09.2021.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) 1067/2021/LSGD DATED 01.06.2021.