Anitha Raj vs The Benoor Ksheerolpadaka ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9722 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 24338 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            ANITHA RAJ,
            AGED 38 YEARS
            W/O.RAJENDRAKUMAR `ARDRA', BELUR PERUMBALA P.O. - 671
            317, KALANAD (VIA), KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            M.SASINDRAN
            P.SHAHEED



RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE BENOOR KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.NO.KG
            83(D) APCOS,P.O.PERUMBALAM, KALANAD(VIA) ,
            KASARAGOD - 671 317, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    2       THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BENOOR KSHEEROLPADAKA
            SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD. NO. KG 83(D) APCOS,
            P.O.PERUMBALAM, KALANAD (VIA) KASARAGOD - 671 317-
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

    3       THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT,
            KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 315.

            BY ADVS.
            RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
            V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

            SMT.PARVATHY -GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24338 OF 2022
                                 2

                              JUDGMENT

The grievance projected by the petitioner in

this case is that 1st respondent - Society has

taken a decision through Ext.P6 to terminate her

from their services without a proper enquiry. She

thus prays that Ext.P6 be set aside and that no

punishment be directed to be imposed on her based

on the same.

2. When this matter was called today, the

learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2,

conceded that Ext.P6 has been issued without being

proceeded by an enquiry; and thus prayed that

liberty be reserved to his client to initiate and

conclude proper disciplinary action against the

petitioner, since the allegations against her are

grave.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I order

this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6; however,

leaving liberty to the Society to initiate and WP(C) NO. 24338 OF 2022

complete action against the petitioner, if so

found necessary, however, following due procedure

and after affording necessary opportunity of being

heard.

Needless to say, I have not entered into the

merits of the rival contentions of the parties and

they are all left open to be pursued by them

appropriately in future.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 24338 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24338/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 14-11-

2018.

Exhibit P1 A A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE MEMO DATED 26-01.2019.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24-11-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHARGE MEMO.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-10-2019.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-01-2020 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.6.2022 IN W.P.(C)NO. 7790 OF 2021.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY BASED ON THE RESOLUTION DATED 07.07.2022.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE