Sudeep O.K vs K.Sudhir
2021 Latest Caselaw 19821 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
     THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
                    CON.CASE(C) NO. 1538 OF 2021
         WP(C) 9119/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

           SUDEEP O.K
           AGED 43 YEARS
           S/O. R.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (LATE), MARKETING MANAGER,
           (RE-DESIGNATED AS PRODUCTION MANAGER (HPH CHIRAKKAL),
           KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
           CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR.

           BY ADVS.
           KALEESWARAM RAJ(K-9)
           VARUN C.VIJAY
           THULASI K. RAJ



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NO.3:

     1     SRI.K.SUDHIR
           FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
           FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM
           DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. PM/32/249, THILLERI ROAD,
           KANNUR-670 001.

     2     SRI.K.S.PRADEEP KUMAR
           FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
           MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT
           CORPORATION LTD. PM/32/249, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR-670
           001.

           BY ADV.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC


This CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) having come up for orders on
23.09.2021, the court on the same day passed the following:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1538 OF 2021
                                 2

                           JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the petitioner alleges contempt of

Annexure I order, which directed status quo as on today. The

prayer in the interim application was for a stay the operation and

implementation of Ext.P20 and the decision to proceed further

with domestic enquiry and the decision to appoint respondent

no.6 as the enquiry officer/authority as stated in Ext.P20. In view

of the above pleadings and prayer sought, that an order of status

quo was granted. The petitioner contends that Annexure III memo

issued on 28.07.2021 amounts to a violation of the order of status

quo.

2. However, having considered the order as well as

Annexure III which is a later, separate memo issued to the

petitioner apparently unconnected with the earlier disciplinary

proceedings, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made

out any case of contempt of the directions in Annexure I. CON.CASE(C) NO. 1538 OF 2021

In the above view of the matter, the Contempt of Court Case

is closed without prejudice to the contentions of the parties and

the right of the petitioner to challenge the memo in an

appropriate proceedings.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE Bng/15.09.2021 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1538 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1538/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.4.2021 IN WP(C) NO.919 OF 2021.

Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 23.7.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.11316 OF 2021

Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 28.7.2021.