Nithin. K vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 9047 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 27014 OF 2023
PETITIONER:


          NITHIN K., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O K.N SHAJI, WORKING AS
          JUNIOR ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), SUPPLYCO, MAVELI
          STORE, PALAYAM RESIDING AT ZAITH HOUSE, PANICKER ROAD,
          NADAKKAVU POST, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673011

          BY ADV V.VINAY


RESPONDENTS:


    1     STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL
          SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 379A, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN
          BLOCK SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     SUPPLYCO, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM,
          PIN - 682020

    3     CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA CIVIL SUPPLIES
          CORPORATION, SUPPLYCO, MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD,
          GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020

    4     ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER (P&A), SUPPLYCO,
          MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020

          BY ADV SANTHOSH PETER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 27014 OF 2023
                                   2


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be working as a Junior Assistant in

the services of the 2nd respondent - Kerala State Civil Supplies

Corporation Ltd. ('SUPPLYCO' for short); and alleges that he has

been unfairly placed under suspension through Ext.P4, imputing

certain allegations which cannot be attributed against him and

which are part of Ext.P2 show cause notice, earlier issued to him.

2. Sri.V.Vinay - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that the sum total of the allegations against his client, as can be

gathered from Ext.P2, is that he had recorded certain wrong

information in the "Price Display Board", with respect to the stock

of articles, in Palayam store of "SUPPLYCO"; and that he had

allegedly shown 'nil stock' against certain articles, even when it

was physically available. He asserts that these allegations are

factually untrue because, his client had recorded 'nil stock' only as

against those articles which were either not available, or

incapable of being sold on account of the fact that it had been

fumigated a few days ago - thus being available for sale only a few

days later; or where it was certified incapable of human

consumption or sale. He submitted that these facts have been

stated by his client in the explanation to Ext.P2, namely Ext.P3;

but that in spite of the same, he has been subsequently suspended WP(C) NO. 27014 OF 2023

through Ext.P4, against which also, he has made a representation,

namely Ext.P6, which is still pending.

3. Sri.V.Vinay vehemently argued that his client has been

victimised for no fault, for having acted bona fide in making

correct information available to the customers of the

"SUPPLYCO", and hence reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P4 order of

suspension be set aside.

4. Sri.Santhosh Peter - learned Standing Counsel for the

"SUPPLYCO", on the other hand, submitted that petitioner had

made an incorrect record of the stock in the "Price Display Board"

of the store, thus causing ridicule to the "SUPPLYCO" in public

and social media. He explained that even when physical stock of

the articles was available in the store in question, the petitioner -

who was in its charge - mentioned it as being 'nil' in the "Price

Display Board", being fully aware that this would bring direpute

to the "SUPPLYCO" and cause inconvenience to his customers. He

argued that, in any event, since specific allegations have been

made against the petitioner through Ext.P2, and since an enquiry

has been found necessitated because Ext.P3 explanation was

found not satisfactory, it is for him to now cooperate with the

same; for which purpose his suspension becomes imperative. He,

however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that

Ext.P6 representation made by the petitioner against Ext.P4 WP(C) NO. 27014 OF 2023

suspension order has not been decided or disposed of until now.

5. Before I answer the rival submissions of the parties, it

must be said upfront that it was certainly the duty of the petitioner

to ensure that only the correct information had been shown in the

"Price Display Board" of the store in question. If he has

committed any act to offer wrong information to the public, as

alleged, then he would be responsible to answer the

consequences.

6. However, the pertinent question is whether petitioner had

made any wrong record in the "Price Display Board" of the store,

and this is essentially a question of fact, which cannot be decided

by this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

7. That said, Ext.P3 objection of the petitioner specifically

explains what happened on the date on which the "Price Display

Board" was found as alleged in the store in question. According to

him, wherever the stock was available to be sold and fit for human

consumption, he had recorded so; but that with respect to the

articles he had recorded otherwise, the stock available was either

fumigated - which could be put to sale only a few days later, or

where the same was pest or fungus infected, thus incapable of

human consumption.

8. The petitioner, in substantiation, has produced Ext.P7, WP(C) NO. 27014 OF 2023

which is the report of the quality control department of the

"SUPPLYCO", and he points out that at least four articles have

been shown therein to be unsafe for human consumption and to be

kept aside. He alleges that, however, merely because there was

some media attention drawn to the "Price Display Board" in

question, the "SUPPLYCO" has acted to a knee-jerk reaction, to

render him a scapegoat. The petitioner also contends that there

was absolutely no reason for him to have been placed under

suspension, because even a cursory enquiry would have

established that he had committed no wrong, but had, in fact,

acted bona fide in public interest, by recording the correct

information in the "Price Display Board".

9. As I have already said above, since the controversy

between the parties is in the factual realm, it would not be

possible for this Court to answer it affirmatively. However, it is

also equally important that the petitioner, if he has acted bona

fide, should not be victimised or put to detriment for no fault that

can be attributed.

10. It is, therefore, now imperatively necessary that the

competent Authority of the SUPPLYCO take up Ext.P6

representation and consider the same dispassionately, after

affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus to decide

whether he requires to be continued under suspension, WP(C) NO. 27014 OF 2023

particularly when he contends that his continuance would cause

no prejudice to any enquiry that may be conducted based on the

imputations in Ext.P2 show cause notice.

11. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition

directing the third respondent - Chairman and Managing Director

of the SUPPLYCO to immediately take up Ext.P6 representation of

the petitioner and decide it, after affording him an opportunity of

being heard, taking note of my observations above and adverting

to his specific contentions as recorded herein and pleaded in the

writ petition; thus culminating in an appropriate order, as to

whether the order of suspension against him should be reviewed

or otherwise, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than ten

days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

To enable an expeditious compliance of the afore directions,

I direct the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment, along

with a copy of this writ petition, before the Chairman and

Managing Director of "SUPPLYCO" and the time frame afore fixed

will begin from the date on which it is so done.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 27014 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27014/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT DATED 04.08.2023 APPEARED IN KERALA KAUMUDI NEWSPAPER

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE NO.D16-

24141/23 DATED 05.08.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.D-16-

24141/23 DATED 08.08.2023 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B-05/2023 DATED 09.08.2023 OF THE DEPOT MANAGER, KOZHIKODE

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P7 The true copy of the report dated 09.08.2023 submitted by the Quality Controller/Analyst of Maveli Store, Palayam

Exhibit P8 The true copy of the interim order dated 27.04.202 in W.P No.2615/2021

Exhibit P9 The true copy of the communication dated 04.07.2023 of the Manager (Marketing)

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R2 (A) True copy of the report submitted by the Regional Manager of the 2nd respondent dated 04.8.2023 WP(C) NO. 27014 OF 2023

Annexure R2 (B) The true copy of attendance register of the Maveli Store, Palayam showing the attendance of the petitioner on 04.8.2023

Annexure R2 (C) True copy of the relevant portion of The Kerala Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Accounts And Display of Prices And Stocks) Order, 1977

Annexure R2 (D) True copy of the portion of The Maveli Manuel of the 2nd respondent contains the duties and responsibilities of the employees

Annexure R2 (E) The true copy of the inspection report of the Junior Manager (QA) dated 02.8.2023