Anilkumar Raghavan vs The Fertilizers And Chemicals ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7644 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI &
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
   TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 275 OF 2021
            WA 1046/2006 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
         ANILKUMAR RAGHAVAN,AGED 56 YEARS,S/O LATE RAGHAVAN
         N, S/O SAROJ HOUSE, NEAR PULIYAKATH MATOM,
         P.O.AROOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 534.

         BY ADVS.P.A.CHANDRAN/SRI.A.L.GEORGE
         SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)/K.NANDINI
RESPONDENT/S:
    1     THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD.,
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          SRI. KISHOR KUMAR RUNGTA, HEAD OFFICE,
          UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501, KOCHI, KERALA
    2     SRI. R.K. CHATURVEDI IAS,SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
          INDIA, MINISTRY OF FERTILIZERS, ROOM NO 501, A
          WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
          NEW DELHI-110 001, (THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS
          TRAVANCORE LTD (FACT) HEAD OFFICE, UDYOGAMANDAL-
          683 501, KOCHI KERALA)
    3     MR. SHUSILKUMAR IAS,SECRETARY, NATIONAL COMMISSION
          FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, 5TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN,
          KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 003.
    4     SRI.KISHOR KUMAR RUNGTA,CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
          DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, FERTILIZERS AND
          CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD, UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501,
          KOCHI, KERALA.
    5     SRI. A.R.MOHAN KUMAR,GENERAL MANGER (HR AND A),
          CORPORATE OFFICE, FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS
          TRAVANCORE LTD,UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501,KOCHI, KERALA
          BY ADVS.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
          K.JOHN MATHAI/JOSON MANAVALAN/ADV. JAI MOHAN
          KURYAN THOMAS/PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM/RAJA KANNAN
OTHER PRESENT:
     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 CON.CASE(C) NO. 275 OF 2021

                                  -2-


                               S.V.BHATTI
                       & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -
                     Cont. Case No.275 of 2021
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                               JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 28th day of June 2022)

Basant Balaji J.,

This contempt case is filed alleging non-compliance of the directions in the judgment in Writ appeal No.1406 of 2006 dated 2.7.2009. This court has considered the case of the petitioner at length, and allowed the writ appeal as follows:

"In the result, we quash Ext.P29 and P32 orders. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for a fresh decision on the choice of penalty in the light of the charges held to be proved by us. The said decision shall be taken by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law within two months from the date of CON.CASE(C) NO. 275 OF 2021

receipt of a copy of this judgment."

2. The case of the petitioner is that even though the judgment was passed in the year 2006, the respondents willfully refused to comply with the directions in the judgment.

3. The respondent Nos.1, 4, and 5 have filed a counter affidavit on 15.3.2021 in which it was contended that the contempt case is not maintainable in law as there is no violation of the Annexure 1 judgment by the respondents. The directions have duly complied in letter and spirit within the time limit prescribed by this court. It was also averred in the counter that during the pendency of the Writ Appeal itself, the Chairman and Managing Director/Appellate Authority heard the petitioner as directed in the judgment in the original petition and passed an order dated 27.1.2009, whereby the order of dismissal was modified to an appointment one grade below the grade he was holding at the time of removal. Thus, the petitioner was offered an appointment in managerial I E0 Scale of pay in the Marketing Division of the Company. Accordingly, CON.CASE(C) NO. 275 OF 2021

he was issued with a fresh appointment dated 20.1.2009 appointing him as Assistant Officer (Documentation) in the Training and Development Centre of the company and the petitioner after accepting the terms and conditions mentioned in the order joined the service afresh on 27.1.2009. Thereafter, Writ Appeal was finally heard and disposed of by Annex.1 judgment.

4. In compliance with the directions in Annx.1 judgment, the matter was considered by the disciplinary authority for a fresh decision on the choice of penalty in the light of the charges. After due consideration, the disciplinary authority took a fresh decision by order dated 22.9.2009 and he was given an appointment in Managerial I Eo scale of pay, at the basic pay he was drawing when he was removed from the service of the company. The said proceedings of the General Manager (F&F) is produced as Annex.R1(a). Thereafter Annex.R1(b) communication was issued on 25.9.2009 informing the modifications in the appointment order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.R1(c) appeal before the Chairman and Managing CON.CASE(C) NO. 275 OF 2021

Director against the proceedings dated 22.9.2009. The said appeal was placed before the 431 st Board Meeting held on 31.1.2010 and after considering the appeal, the Board concluded that there is no merit in the appeal, and the same was dismissed. The same decision was also informed through Annex.R1(d) dated 31.1.2010. The respondents thus submitted that they have fully complied with the direction of this court in Annex.1 judgment.

5. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in which it was contended that fresh appointments and consequent promotion are not related to the compliance of the judgments. It was also averred that Annex.R1(a), R1(b) and R1(c) are fake and manipulated.

6. This court, by Annex.1 judgment quashed P29 and P32 orders and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for a fresh decision on the choice of penalty in the light of the charges held to be proved. The time granted was two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. Judgment was passed on 2.7.2009 and Annex 1 CON.CASE(C) NO. 275 OF 2021

proceedings was issued on 22.9.2009 which shows that the judgment has been duly complied with. Moreover, he has filed appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director and the appeal was also placed before the Board and it was dismissed.

Annex. Nos. R1(a) and R1(d) prove the fact that the directions contained in Annex.1 Judgment have been fully complied with even in 2009 itself. In view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the contempt case lacks merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

sd

S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE

sd BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE dl/ CON.CASE(C) NO. 275 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 275/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2ND JULY 2009 IN WA NO 1046/2006 JUDGMENT DATED 2ND JULY 2009 IN WA NO 046/2006 ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.8.2016 ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR (NO 1440 NGE(APP)4-96) ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE