P. Sathyanathan vs Kerala State Co-Operative Coir ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 777 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 20972 OF 2012
PETITIONER/S:

            P. SATHYANATHAN
            S/O.P.SANKARAN NAIR, PALLIPPURATH HOUSE, NORTH
            THORAVA, PUTHUKAD.P.O, THRISSUR.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.V.BABY
            SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING
            FEDERATION LTD
            ALAPPUZHA-688 012. REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
    2       MANAGING DIRECTOR
            KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING
            FEDERATION LTD NO.679, ALAPPUZHA-688 012.
            BY ADVS.
            SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)
            SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED
            SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SC, COIRFED
            SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, COIRFED


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   12.01.2023,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                      -2-
W.P.(C). No. 20972 of 2012



                             P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                             ======================================================

                              W.P.(C) No. 20972 of 2012
                         =============================================================

                   Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023

                                          JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P1 land quash the same; and

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to refund the amount already deducted as mentioned in Ext. P4 along with further deductions if any with reasonable rate of interest at least @ 18% mentioned in Ext. P3 and

iii) Issue another writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to pay to the petitioner/to disburse the salary of showroom manger Grade-II w.e.f. 1/1/2012 and

iv) Declare that the entire proceedings in issuance of Ext. P1 and further proceedings are vitiated due to the non compliance of the principles of natural justice; and

v) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction, as may be deem fit and necessary in the acts and circumstances of the case and allow this Writ Petition with costs." (sic)

W.P.(C). No. 20972 of 2012

2. The petitioner was working as showroom manager in

charge of Thrissur Showroom of the coirfed. On the basis of an

investigation conducted by officers of the coirfed Ext.P1 charge

sheet was issued to the petitioner by the 1 st respondent. It is the

case of the petitioner that even though Ext.P2 explanation was

submitted by the petitioner, the same was not considered and no

independent enquiry was conducted with notice to the petitioner.

After keeping the matter idle for a period from 2005 till 2012,

Ext.P3 was issued for recovering the amount from the salary of

the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel

appearing for the respondents.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on

1.10.2012, this Court passed the following order.

"Notice by speed post.

W.P.(C). No. 20972 of 2012

There will be an interim order staying all further proceedings initiated for recovery of amount from the salary of the petitioner for a period of two months."

5. The above order was extended until further orders on

26.07.2013. The interim order is in force even now. Today when

the matter came up for consideration, the counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner already retired from

service. Moreover, according to the petitioner, no enquiry is

conducted before issuing Ext.P3 order. If that be so, at this

distance of time, Ext.P3 need not be retained.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is quashed.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das

W.P.(C). No. 20972 of 2012

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20972/2012 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 18.04.2005 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 05.05.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS.