S. Syam vs 1. The State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 7786 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 22372 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

            S. SYAM,
            AGED 39 YEARS
            S/O.SASIDHARAN, RESIDING AT DEEPTHI BHAVAN, MAROOR
            P.O., ELAMANNOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN - 691524
            BY ADVS.
            B.KRISHNA MANI
            N.V.SANDHYA
            DHANUJA M.S


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
            AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
    2       THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. KISSAN
            JYOTHI, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
            BY ADVS.
            Gopikrishnan Nambiar M
            K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984)
            JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526)
            KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
            PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)
            RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008)


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   26.07.2023,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 22372 OF 2023
                                 2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P21 order of the 2 nd respondent -

Managing Director of the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd,

through which, his request - namely Ext.P20, for reinstating him in

service, after revocation of his earlier order of suspension, has been

rejected saying that an enquiry is pending against him.

2. Sri.B.Krishna Mani - learned counsel for the petitioner,

vehemently argued that his client had earlier approached this Court to

obtain Ext.P6 judgment, wherein, it has been clarified that if

disciplinary enquiry against his client is delayed indefinitely,he can file

a representation seeking reinstatement. He submitted that it is based

on such liberty, that his client preferred Ext.P20 representation; but

that it has been rejected through Ext.P21, merely saying that an

Enquiry Officer has been posted and therefore, that a "smooth

enquiry" is possible only if his suspension is extended. The learned

counsel vehemently argued that Ext.P21 is illegal and contrary to the

spirit of Ext.P6 judgment; and prayed that it be set aside.

3. In response, however, Smt.Pooja Menon - learned

Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, submitted that there has

been no conscious effort from her client's side to delay the enquiry in WP(C) NO. 22372 OF 2023

any manner whatsoever, which is manifest from the fact that an

Enquiry Officer has been appointed. She, however, conceded that, in

Ext.P21, apart from saying that an Enquiry Officer has been posted no

other reason has been given for extension of the period of suspension

of the petitioner. She, therefore, prayed that if this Court is not

inclined to accept Ext.P21, then liberty may be reserved to 2 nd

respondent to reconsider Ext.P20 in terms of law, but within a short

time frame.

4. When I evaluate the afore submissions and examine

Ext.P21 - which is the impugned order, as rightly argued by

Sri.B.Krishna Mani, apart from merely saying that "vide reference

above, Enquiry Officer was posted to conduct domestic enquiry" and

"in order to facilitate the smooth enquiry, it is ordered that the period

of suspension of Sri.Syam, Assistant Chargeman is extended for a

further period of six months with effect from 21.04.2023" (sic), no

other reasons have been stated therein as to why his request in

Ext.P20 has been denied.

5. As stated above, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P20

based on the liberty reserved to him in Ext.P6 judgment; and

indubitably therefore, it was upto the 2 nd respondent to have

considered it in its proper perspective, rather than have rejected it in

the manner it has been done in Ext.P21, which, I am afraid is in a

rather mechanical fashion.

WP(C) NO. 22372 OF 2023

6. This is more so because, even though the impugned order

says that "vide reference above the Enquiry Officer was posted",

there are five different proceedings referred to therein and it is not

possible for one to understand, which one is being relied upon.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and set

aside Ext.P21; with a consequential direction to the 2 nd respondent to

reconsider Ext.P20 representation of the petitioner, adverting to all

documents produced by him before this Court, specifically to Ext.P6

judgment, and after affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus

culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In order to facilitate an expeditious compliance of the afore

directions, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the 2 nd

respondent at 11.00 A.M on 29.07.2023.

Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE lsn WP(C) NO. 22372 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22372/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/5/2020 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE ORDER DATED 12/6/2020 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.

Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.

Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF W.P.(C)NO.34317/2022 DATED 26/10/2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/11/2022 IN W.P.(C)NO.34317/2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.

(C).NO.20101/2020 BEFORFE THE HON;BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM DATED 9-2-2022 Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 5/1/2023.

Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPLY DATED 16/1/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/1/2023 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPLY DATED 30/1/2023.

Exhibit-P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 21/2/2023.

Exhibit-P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/3/2023 ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. Exhibit-P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/4/2023 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

WP(C) NO. 22372 OF 2023

Exhibit-P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17/4/2023 TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. Exhibit-P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 24/4/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit-P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED OBJECTION TO EXT.P16 DATED 5/5/2023.

Exhibit-18 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/6/2023.

Exhibit-P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PRESENTING OFFICER DATED 22/6/2023 Exhibit-P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/2/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/4/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 15/6/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN