Kerala High Court
Anilkumar A.B vs Kerala Books And Publications Society ... on 14 August, 2025
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:60800
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.710 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
ANILKUMAR A.B.
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O BHASKARAN A.V., WORKING AS FITTER MECHANIC GRADE I (NOW UNDER
SUSPENSION), KERALA BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS SOCIETY, THRIKKAKARA,
KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT ALUTHARA HOUSE, KOTHAD,
KOTHAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027
BY ADVS.
SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR
SHRI.M.R.HARIRAJ (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS SOCIETY (GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
UNDERTAKING)
THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 682030
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS SOCIETY (GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
UNDERTAKING), THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 VIJU P.B ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
S/O. P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, WORKING AS TUNER MECHANIC, GRADE 2, KBPS,
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:60800
KAKKANAD, ERNKULAM 682030 RESIDING AT PILAPPILLY HOUSE, OKKAL P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR, KARICODE ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ), PIN - 683550
BY ADV SMT.LATHA ANAND; SRI VISHNU S ARIKKATHIL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING RESERVED ON 30.05.2025, THE COURT ON 14.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:60800
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated 13.03.2025, passed in
W.P.(C) No. 710/2025.
2. The appellant/petitioner had filed the Writ Petition praying
for the following reliefs:
"i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction and to quash Exhibits P8 and P9;
ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the 2 nd respondent to reinstate the
petitioner in service forthwith;
iii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order of direction commanding the 2nd respondent to keep in
abeyance all further departmental proceedings based on the same set of
charges in C.C. No. 354/2024 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Kakkanad till the conclusion of the proceedings in C.C. No.
354/2024 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakkanad;
iv. To dispense with the English Translation of vernacular documents;
v. Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the court may
deem fit to grant; and
vi. grant the cost of the writ petition."
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
2025:KER:60800
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was
working as a Fitter Mechanic Grade-I at the Kerala Books and
Publications Society. The appellant was initially appointed on a daily
wage basis as a Fitter Mechanic under the first respondent Society, a
registered Society under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin
Literary, Scientific and Charitable Society Registration Act 1955. Later
on, the appellant was given permanent employment as Fitter Mechanic
Grade-II and then promoted to the post of Fitter Mechanic Grade-I with
effect from January 2014.
3.1 Thereafter, a complaint was received by the first
respondent that the appellant had submitted a forged experience
certificate and based on that, he secured the promotion to the post of
Fitter Mechanic Grade-I. A criminal complaint was registered before
the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakkanad, alleging that the
appellant had secured the promotion by submitting a forged certificate
of experience. The Police, after investigation, filed the final
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
2025:KER:60800
report/charge sheet in the aforementioned crime, and the case is
pending trial as C.C. No.354/2024 before the competent Court.
3.2 As a result, the appellant was suspended under Section
13(1)(gg) of the Society's Certified Standing Orders vide Ext. P8 dated
19.12.2024. Thereafter, a Show-Cause Notice dated 19.12.2024 was
issued to the appellant as to why disciplinary proceedings as per
Section 14 of the Certified Standing Orders should not be initiated
against him.
4. The appellant had sought multiple prayers in the writ
petition, right from challenging the suspension order, show-cause
notice and keeping in abeyance the disciplinary proceedings on the
ground that two simultaneous proceedings cannot go on, i.e., criminal
as well as departmental proceedings. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant has been
suspended as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(gg) of the Society's
Certified Standing Orders and there was no error in suspending the
petitioner and issuing a show-cause notice.
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
2025:KER:60800
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the
learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition. The Apex
Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Bimala Kumar Mohanty [(1994) 4
SCC 126] and this Court in Vikraman Nair K v. State of Kerala [2008 (4)
KLT SN 59] have held that a suspension order should not be issued as
an administrative routine and it should not be automatic without any
application of mind. The appellant should not have been suspended
merely due to the pendency of criminal proceedings or the
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, without application of mind
and without assigning any reasons. The learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the aforesaid cardinal principles of law relating to
suspension while dismissing the writ petition.
5.1 Further, it is contended that the Apex Court in M. Paul
Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd [(1999) 3 SCC 679] has held that
where criminal and disciplinary proceedings are based on identical or
similar facts, and the charges levelled are serious, it would be desirable
to stay the disciplinary proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
2025:KER:60800
trial. This aspect was also overlooked by the learned Single Judge.
5.2 On these grounds, the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1
and 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that the Writ Petition was not
maintainable against the Suspension Order and the show-cause notice.
The appellant in the writ petition has prayed for multiple reliefs,
having different kinds of consideration. Therefore, the same is not
maintainable. He further submitted that since criminal proceedings
have been initiated, as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(gg) of the
Society's Certified Stranding Order, the delinquent employee is
required to be suspended pending enquiry.
6.1 Insofar as staying the disciplinary proceedings on the
ground that two parallel proceedings cannot continue for the same set
of charges is concerned, the learned Counsel submitted that, in the
present case, the disciplinary enquiry is yet to commence. Only a
show-cause notice has been issued to the appellant as to why
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
2025:KER:60800
disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated, meaning thereby, it
cannot be said that the disciplinary enquiry has commenced. It is only
after inviting a reply and considering the same that the competent
authority may decide either to initiate disciplinary proceedings or to
close the same. Therefore, the third prayer in the writ petition is
premature.
6.2 The learned Single Judge is right in dismissing the writ
petition, and no interference in this Writ Appeal is called for. Hence,
the same deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard Mr M.R. Hariraj, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Mr Nirmal V Nair, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr Vishnu S
Arikkattil representing Mrs Latha Anand, learned Counsel for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
8. So far as the suspension is concerned, as per the Certified
Standing Orders, the same needs to be reviewed from time to time. In
the present case, it appears that the suspension order has not been
reviewed for quite a long time. In such a situation, without entering
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
2025:KER:60800
into the merits of the suspension order, it would be appropriate to
direct the competent authority of the respondents to review the
suspension and pass appropriate orders, if not already reviewed.
8.1 Insofar as the show-cause notice is concerned, the writ
petition itself was not maintainable in the light of the Apex Court
judgment in the case of Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd v. Union of India
[(2020) 12 SCC 808] wherein it was held that a writ petition against a
show-cause notice is not maintainable bypassing an effective statutory
remedy. The High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition filed
against the earlier show-cause notice.
8.2 In the present case, only a show-cause notice has been
issued inviting a reply, which does not mean that disciplinary
proceedings have been initiated against the appellant. In such a
situation, there is no question of staying the disciplinary proceedings
on the ground that two parallel proceedings cannot continue
simultaneously.
9. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
2025:KER:60800
Judge has not committed any error. Except for suspension, no other
aspects were considered. So far as review of suspension order is
concerned, the compentent authority, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2, are
directed to review the appellant's suspension in accordance with the
law, as expeditiously as possible, within thirty days, if it has not already
been reviewed and may then decide whether to continue or revoke the
suspension, as the case may be.
With the aforementioned observations, the Writ Appeal is
disposed of. All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters
stand closed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
jjj
WA NO. 806 OF 2025
2025:KER:60800
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF CHARGE MEMO ISSUED UNDER PROCEEDINGS
NUMBER P AND A5/349 B/2025/2001 DATED 8-5-2025 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 762/2022 OF
THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE TRUE
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE
FINAL REPORT
