Kerala High Court
Naveen.K. Narayan vs Food Corporation Of India on 13 September, 2024
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2024:KER:70431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
WA NO. 1448 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.08.2024 IN WP(C) NO.14693
OF 2024 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
NAVEEN.K. NARAYAN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O K.V.NARAYANAN, VETTILA, OPP.KOYILANDY
RAILWAY STATION, KOYILANDY (POST), KOZHIKODE
(WORKING AS ASSISTANT GRADE I(DEPOT), FOOD
CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR-680581),
PIN - 673305.
BY ADVS.
D.AJITHKUMAR
T.MANASY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
HEAD QUARTERS, 16-20, BARAKAMBA LANE,
NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PIN - 110001.
2
W.A.No.1448 of 2024
2024:KER:70431
2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(SOUTH),
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, NO.3,
HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI, PIN - 600006.
3 THE GENERAL MANAGER(KERALA) & THE DISCIPLINARY
AUTHORITY
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KEASAVDASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004.
4 SHIV KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
INQUIRY OFFICER/ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(QC),
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
WEST HILL(POST) KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673005.
SRI JOSE KURIAKOSE, SC FOR FCI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.1448 of 2024
2024:KER:70431
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1448 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2024
JUDGMENT
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.14693 of 2024 seeking a
writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P10, P12 and P14. A writ of
mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to furnish copies
of documents the petitioner has requested in terms of Ext.P11
and P13 applications and consequential reliefs were also
sought. The learned Single Judge as per the judgment dated
29.08.2024 dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appellant
filed this appeal invoking the provisions of Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India.
3. The appellant is working as Assistant Grade I
(Depot) at the Thrissur Divisional Office of the Food
Corporation of India. While he was working at Food Storage
2024:KER:70431
Depot, Thrikkodi, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
registered a crime alleging criminal conspiracy and
misappropriation against the appellant and three others.
Following that a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against
the appellant and memo of charge was issued to him.
4. The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.19621 of 2022
seeking to quash the memo of charges issued to him. That
writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment by giving a
few directions. Later, the 2nd respondent issued a fresh memo
of charges and initiated the disciplinary proceedings. At that
stage, the appellant has filed the present writ petition. A
counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit were filed on
behalf of the respondent. When the matter was considered by
the learned Single Judge, the learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent took the stand that the disciplinary enquiry
against the appellant was not based on the report submitted
by the CBI, and no materials which form part of the report
submitted by the CBI would be relied on in the enquiry
against the petitioner. It was further submitted that all the
2024:KER:70431
documents and materials proposed to be used at the enquiry
against the petitioner were already furnished to him.
5. The apprehension of the petitioner is that during
the enquiry, the documents and materials, copies of which
were not furnished to him, would be used against him. His
further anquish is that the documents, copy of which he
requested as per Ext.P11 and P13 applications are necessary
for him to defend in the enquiry, but the same were not
furnished to him.
6. Having regard to the pleadings and submissions on
either side, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition observing as follows:
"In the light of the submissions made by the learned
Standing Counsel for the FCI, I do not find any basis for
the apprehension expressed by the petitioner. The enquiry
has already been prolonged. The enquiry has to come to a
logical conclusion in the interest of the petitioner as well
as the respondents. However, it is made clear that, in
case any materials which are not made available to the
petitioner are relied on in the enquiry, the enquiry would
be vitiated for want of compliance with the principles of
natural justice. With the said observation, this writ
2024:KER:70431
petition is disposed of permitting the respondents to
proceed with the enquiry. All the contentions of the
petitioner with regard to the legality of the enquiry are
left open."
Apprehension of the appellant for want of getting copies
of a few documents, he may not be able to defend in the
disciplinary enquiry, is duly considered by the learned Single
Judge. In the light of the order of the learned Single Judge,
we find no merits in this appeal. We find no reason to
interfere with the findings in the impugned judgment. The
rights of the appellant are sufficiently safeguarded.
In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
