Varghese Zachariah vs The Plantation Corporation Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7815 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. 22539 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          VARGHESE ZACHARIAH
          AGED 60 YEARS
          S/O. P.V. SKARIAH, PUTHIYATH AJAY BHAVAN, ELANTHOOR
          EAST PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - PIN - 689643(RETIRED
          FROM PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD AS FIELD
          EXECUTIVE (LOWEST CADRE OF OFFICER) ON 31/5/2022 FROM
          DIVISION 'D' OF KODUMON ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
          OF THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.)
          BY ADVS.
          T.O.XAVIER
          V.SETHUKUTTY AMMA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD
          MUTTAMBALAM PO (HEAD OFFICE), KOTTAYAM - REPRESENTED BY
          ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 686004
    2     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF
          KERALA LTD,MUTTAMBALAM PO, KOTTAYAM - PIN - 686004
    3     THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
          AGRICULTURE (PO) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - PIN - 695001
     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. 22539 OF 2023
                               -2-

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 order, through

which, the 2nd respondent - Managing Director of

the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited

(PCK), has denied his request for pensionary

benefits, consequent to the retirement on

attaining the age of superannuation on

31.05.2022, on the ground that they are

proposing an inquiry against him to verify and

quantify certain liabilities.

2. Sri.T.O.Xavier - learned counsel for the

petitioner, vehemently argued that contents of

Ext.P8 are peremptorily illegal because it

admits unreservedly that an earlier inquiry had

been conducted against his client, before he had

retired, to find him not guilty. He submitted

that, therefore, the present attempt of the 2 nd

respondent, to cause a second inquiry amounts to

double jeopardy, which is proscribed by the WP(C) NO. 22539 OF 2023

constitutional mandate of this country. He thus

prayed that Ext.P8 be set aside and the 1 st

respondent - PCK, be directed to disburse to his

client the eligible pensionary benefits, within

a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. Sri.N.Rajesh - learned Standing Counsel

for the PCK, pertinently conceded that it is

recorded in Ext.P8 that an earlier inquiry

against the petitioner, while he was in service,

was concluded in his favour. He submitted that,

however, since it was subsequently found that

there were large-scale loss caused to his

client, the 2nd respondent has ordered a fresh

inquiry; and thus prayed that this writ petition

be dismissed.

4. I am afraid that this Court I cannot

find any favour with the submissions of

Sri.N.Rajesh because, when it is unequivocally

admitted that an inquiry against the petitioner WP(C) NO. 22539 OF 2023

had been conducted on the same set of

allegation, as recorded in Ext.P8, to find him

not guilty, a further one on the very same

imputations cannot be allowed to be taken

forward. In fact, Ext.P8 is silent as to why a

second inquiry is being ordered against the

petitioner; and this can only be seen to be

double jeopardy. Further, a new inquiry against

the petitioner; after he had retired is also

legally impermissible.

5. Presumably, being aware of the mind of

this Court as afore, Sri.N.Rajesh - learned

Standing Counsel, submitted that, if this Court

is not inclined to accept Ext.P8, then liberty

may be reserved to the 2nd respondent to

reconsider the claims of the petitioner and take

a decision on his request for pensionary

benefits, which he undertook will be done

without any avoidable delay.

WP(C) NO. 22539 OF 2023

In the afore circumstances and for the

reasons above, I order this writ petition and

set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential direction

to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the claim of

the petitioner for pensionary benefits; thus

culminating in an appropriate order and

necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible, but not later than one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that, if the petitioner is

found eligible to the pensionary benefits as

claimed by him, then it shall be disbursed to

him within a period of one month thereafter.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 22539 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22539/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.

15/2016 DATED 16/5/2016 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/1/2019 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA IN O.S. NO. 15/2016 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE VIGILANCE REPORT BEARING NO. PE 09/2018/SIU-II DATED 15/7/2019 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.

P&A/F/562 DATED 10/5/2022 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY ORDER BEARING NO.

P&A/F/805 DATED 27/5/2022 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING P&A/F/1570 DATED 25/7/2022 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.

P&A/F/961 DATED 6/6/2022 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.

P&A/F/1101 DATED 22/6/2023 THUS PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT