[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rajesh R vs The State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2025
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
W.P(C)No.36356 of 2024
2025:KER:95930
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36356 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RAJESH R
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O P. RAJU, SANDHYA HOUSE'
THONDANKULANGARA WARD
ALAPPUZHA (FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE
CASHEW WORKERS APEX INDUSTRIAL
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (CAPEX),
PIN - 688006
BY ADVS.
DR. K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
SMT.S.INDU
SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY THE ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PIN - 695001
W.P(C)No.36356 of 2024
2025:KER:95930
2
3 THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
(COIR, HANDLOOM & CASHEW)
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY THE ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PIN
- 695001
4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (IN CHARGE)
KERALA STATE CASHEW WORKERS APEX INDUSTRIAL
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (CAPEX) P.B. NO. 262
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT H& C COMPOUND
MUNDACKAL WEST KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
5 OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY
THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES (K)
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI ANTONY MUKKATH, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SRI P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C)No.36356 of 2024
2025:KER:95930
3
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.36356 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The Kerala State Cashew Workers Apex Industrial Co-
operative Society Limited ('CAPEX' for short), on the directions
of the 2nd respondent, notified the vacancy in the post of
Managing Director as per Ext.P2. The Selection Committee
constituted with the Principal Secretary, Labour as Chairman
and the Director, DPE and the Managing Director, Travancore
Cochin Chemicals as members, completed the selection process
and published a rank list containing 29 candidates in which the
petitioner was shown against Sl.No.7. An interview was
conducted. Sri R.Jayachandran was selected and appointed as
the Managing Director of CAPEX as per Ext.P3 order dated
06.11.2007. Sri.Jayachandran, who was working in KSEB at that
point in time, was not willing to join CAPEX on a permanent
basis and by Ext.P4, he requested the Secretary, Labour, to
permit him to join as MD of CAPEX on a deputation basis. The
2025:KER:95930
request was declined by the Government. Thereafter, the
petitioner was appointed as MD of CAPEX in the pay scale of
`13610-20700, as can be seen from Ext.P5. The petitioner took
charge on 04.01.2008.
2. On 27.08.2010, the benefit of pay revision was
granted to the petitioner, as can be seen from Ext.P6. By Ext.P7,
the Government accorded sanction to fix the remaining terms
and conditions of appointment since no terms and conditions
were fixed at the time of appointment. It can be seen from
Ext.P7 that the MD is entitled to Contributory Provident Fund,
Medical facilities, Surrender of Earned Leave and terminal
benefits as per the norms of the CAPEX apart from HRA at State
Government rate and TA/DA admissible to the State
Government employees. The counsel for the petitioner submits
that the post of Managing Director is a permanent one.
3. By Exts.P8 and P9, the petitioner was appointed as
Managing Director of Autokast Ltd., Cherthala and
Sri.Jayachandran was appointed in his place on deputation. Five
years later, the petitioner was again appointed as the Managing
Director of the CAPEX, by Ext.P10 order dated 08.07.2016. The
2025:KER:95930
petitioner submits that there had been no break of service while
the petitioner took charge at Autokast Ltd and later at CAPEX.
4. The petitioner was placed under suspension by
Ext.P11 order. The allegation was that CAPEX procured Raw
Cashew Nut ('RCN' for short) from a PWD contractor, instead of
procuring the same from the Plantation Corporation and farms
under SC/ST Departments, etc. It is alleged that the
procurement by such a deviation involved a higher price and
violated the procurement directions issued by the Government,
resulting in financial loss to CAPEX. The petitioner submitted
representations requesting to exonerate him from the charges.
The petitioner was paid subsistence allowance during the period
of suspension, as can be seen from Ext.P12. The petitioner was
thereafter reinstated in service on the condition that, in case the
report of the Accountant General finds that loss was caused to
the Government due to dereliction of duty, proceedings will be
initiated in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Since the petitioner's subsistence allowance had not been paid
for a long period, after being reinstated in the post of Managing
Director, the petitioner withdrew the subsistence allowance in
2025:KER:95930
his capacity as a Self-Drawing Officer, with due concurrence and
recommendations of the Finance and Account Departments of
CAPEX. The petitioner continued as Managing Director in CAPEX.
5. On 14.02.2022, the petitioner was again placed
under suspension as per Ext.P14 order. Two charges were
raised, one being the procurement of RCN in deviation of the
Government direction, causing financial loss to CAPEX, and the
other regarding the drawing of subsistence allowance in a
wrongful manner. It is also alleged that the petitioner had not
informed about the purchase of RCN to the Board of Directors.
6. The audit conducted by the Accountant General for
the years 2016-2019 shows that there was no malpractice in the
procurement of RCN. The petitioner submits that the audit
covers the entire period relating to which the allegations are
made against the petitioner. After accepting the explanations
submitted by the CAPEX to the queries in the audit report, the
Accountant General dropped all the actions regarding the
irregularities pointed out.
7. The petitioner approached the 2 nd respondent
requesting to disburse subsistence allowance, to revoke the
2025:KER:95930
suspension and to effect reinstatement. Ext.P15 is the
representation. The 1st respondent thereafter sent Ext.P16
communication on 13.5.2022 stating that the request of the
petitioner for subsistence allowance is pending with the Finance
Department and a decision will be taken after receiving
intimation from the Finance Department. The petitioner
thereupon filed W.P.(C)No.35509 of 2022, challenging the action
of the respondents. The audit report has been produced as
Ext.P17, and an erratum issued on 30.08.2019 has been
produced as Ext.P18. By judgment dated 09.06.2023, this Court
disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority of
the Government to complete the proceedings initiated as per
Ext.P16 after hearing the petitioner. True copy of the judgment
has been produced as Ext.P21.
8. Ext.P22 is the statement filed by the Joint Secretary
to the Department of Industries in W.P(C).No.9720 of 2021,
wherein it is stated that the petitioner was appointed through a
valid selection process and is competent and has a lien with the
CAPEX. Paragraph 12 of Ext.P22 says that the appointment was
permanent in nature, and he can be reinstated only to the post
2025:KER:95930
which he was holding at the time of suspension. In paragraph
15 of the statement, it is admitted that the audit has accepted
the explanation furnished by CAPEX and dropped the audit
query regarding the procurement of RCN. Regarding the
allegation of procuring cashew for a higher price, the supplier
M/s.Mahsooq Trading Company had filed W.P(C).No.19763 of
2022 seeking direction to CAPEX to disburse the amount due to
them in connection with the supply of cashew. In the said writ
petition this Court had called for the report of the Director of
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and the copy of the report
is produced as Ext.P24. After considering Ext.P24, the writ
petition was disposed of by Ext.P25 judgment directing the 1st
respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner therein, taking
note of the report of the Accountant General that there were no
malpractices in the procurement of RCN.
9. While so, the respondents invited applications for the
post of Managing Director for 15 Public Sector Undertakings,
including CAPEX. The petitioner submits that his rightful claim is
sought to be defeated by appointing others. The petitioner
hence filed W.P(C)No.32826 of 2023, challenging the notification
2025:KER:95930
for the appointment of the new Managing Director. W.P.
(C).No.32787 of 2023 was also filed seeking reinstatement on
the ground that no charge memo had been issued till the date of
filing of the said writ petition. Since an interim order staying all
further proceedings for the appointment of Managing Director
was not granted in the writ petition, the petitioner approached
the Division Bench by filing W.A.No.2043 of 2023. The Division
Bench was also not inclined to interfere with the denial of the
interim relief. On 12.03.2024, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P28
order. The order says that the petitioner is entitled to get an
amount of `14,25,140/- as subsistence allowance from
15.02.2022 to 29.02.2024, from which an amount of
`12,67,876/- is liable to be deducted under various heads,
including amounts drawn in excess as subsistence allowance.
10. Challenging the above-said deduction of amounts,
the petitioner has preferred W.P. (C)No.31506 of 2024. In the
meanwhile, a person claiming to be a union leader filed
W.P(C).No.6659 of 2024, challenging Ext.P23 Government order
granting subsistence allowance to the petitioner, and this Court
ordered that the amount paid as subsistence allowance pursuant
2025:KER:95930
to Ext.P10 therein will be subject to the result of the writ
petition. The petitioner submits that the subsistence allowance
has not been paid to him from March 2024 onwards.
11. Soon after Ext.P27 judgment in Writ Appeal No.2043
of 2023, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P32 order on 30.01.2024
appointing the 5th respondent as the Enquiry Officer. The
petitioner was issued with notice, and the petitioner appeared
and submitted his version and prayed that he may be
exonerated from the charges. The 5th respondent submitted
Ext.P33 report recommending the removal of the petitioner from
service. The reason for the recommendation is the allegation
regarding the purchase of RCN. Though Ext.P33 does not bear
any date, the contents of the report would show that it could
have been filed only after 31.05.2024, on which date the
petitioner's statement was taken. The petitioner was thereafter
issued with Ext.P34 show cause notice on 13.08.2024, to which
the petitioner submitted Ext.P35 reply on 21.08.2024. Though
the petitioner had challenged the Ext.P33 report in WPC
No.32457 of 2024, the same was disposed of by Ext.P36
judgment dated 12.09.2024, finding that it cannot be presumed
2025:KER:95930
that the 1st respondent will pass orders without considering the
explanations submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, by Ext.P37
order dated 29.09.2024, the 2nd respondent terminated the
petitioner from service. The writ petition has been filed in the
above circumstances seeking to quash the Ext.P37 order of
termination and for a direction to reinstate the petitioner in the
post of Managing Director of CAPEX in view of Exts.P20 and P24
and the stand taken by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P22.
12. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
reasoning in the Ext.P37 order is contrary to the Ext.P22
statement filed before this Court. As per Ext.P22, the petitioner
was placed under suspension based on a prima facie view that
there was a serious violation of procurement directions while
procuring RCN by the CAPEX. Ext.P22 also says that the audit
team had evaluated the issue in detail, accepted the details
furnished by CAPEX, and dropped the audit query regarding the
procurement of RCN/Kerala origin RCN contained in Part-II-B of
the "Other Audit Observations" for the period 2016-19. It is
further stated that the allegation of deviation by CAPEX in
procuring RCN by paying more than the indicated price is
2025:KER:95930
unfounded and non-existent. Ext.P22 is a statement filed on
31.08.2021. In view of the categoric statement, it is submitted
by the counsel for the petitioner that the finding in Ext.P33 that
there were discrepancies in the purchase of RCN was without
any basis. Ext.P37 order accepts the report Ext.P33 and does
not consider the fact that the allegations against the petitioner
regarding the discrepancy in the purchase of RCN were no
longer there, and the audit team itself had dropped the query
regarding the same.
13. On the question whether the remedy of the petitioner
is to approach the Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('KCS Act' for short), the
counsel for the petitioner contended that the said provision will
not apply since Ext.P37 is not an order of termination issued by
the Society and the petitioner was neither appointed nor
terminated by the Society. It is submitted that since the
appointment as well as the termination were by the
Government, the petitioner cannot approach the Arbitration
Court under Section 69 of the KCS Act. In support of the above
submission, the counsel for the petitioner also referred to the
2025:KER:95930
bye-laws of the Society. Clause 15 of the bye-laws of the
Society, which deals with the post of Managing Director, says
that the Society is to have a full-time Managing Director who is
to be appointed by the Government. Reference is made to
Ext.P12 order of the Government, which says that the
Government had expressed doubt as to whether action can be
taken against the petitioner as per the Kerala Civil Service Rules
or the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules. The Law Department had clarified that action can only be
taken under the above-mentioned Rules. It is hence submitted
that if action is contemplated under the Kerala Service Rules,
necessarily, the petitioner cannot be said to have a remedy
under Section 69 of the KCS Act. The counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that this is a case where there has been no
enquiry and no enquiry report, except Ext.P33 report, which is
not a report prepared after conducting a full-fledged inquiry, in a
manner known to law.
14. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh v. State of UP [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3325], which says that the evidence recorded in a
2025:KER:95930
preliminary inquiry cannot be used in a regular enquiry, since
the delinquent was neither associated with the preliminary
enquiry, nor granted an opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses in the preliminary enquiry. In the said case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had also held that the contents of
documentary evidence against a delinquent should be proved by
examining witnesses, and mere production of documents is not
sufficient. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder;
"16. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala, this Court held that
evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used
for a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated
with it and the opportunity to cross-examine persons
examined in preliminary inquiry is not given. Relevant
extract thereof reads as under:--
"42. A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern
Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992], held that the
purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in
respect of a particular alleged misconduct is
only for the purpose of finding a particular fact
and prima facie, to know as to whether the
alleged misconduct has been committed and on
the basis of the findings recorded in
preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment
can be passed. It may be used only to take a
view as to whether a regular disciplinary
2025:KER:95930
proceeding against the delinquent is required
to be held.
43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal
Shah v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 1854] a
Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a
similar view held that preliminary inquiry
should not be confused with regular inquiry.
The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the
provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution
of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex
parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the
Government though usually for the sake of
fairness, an explanation may be sought from
the government servant even at such an
inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be
heard as the inquiry is merely for the
satisfaction of the Government as to whether a
regular inquiry must be held. The Court further
held as under : (AIR p. 1862, para 12)
"12. ... ... There must therefore be no
confusion between the two
enquiries and it is only when the
government proceeds to hold a
departmental enquiry for the purpose
of inflicting on the government
servant one of the three major
punishments indicated in Article 311
that the government servant is
entitled to the protection of that
article [, nor prior to that]."
2025:KER:95930
44. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar
v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC
299 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 152 : AIR 1997 SC
2148] this Court dealt with the issue and held
as under:
"... a preliminary inquiry has nothing
to do with the enquiry conducted
after issue of charge-sheet. The
preliminary enquiry is only to find out
whether disciplinary enquiry should
be initiated against the delinquent.
Once regular enquiry is held under
the Rules, the preliminary enquiry
loses its importance and, whether
preliminary enquiry was held strictly
in accordance with law or by
observing principles of natural justice
of (sic) nor, remains of no
consequence."
45. In view of the above, it is evident that
the evidence recorded in preliminary
inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry
as the delinquent is not associated with it,
and opportunity to cross-examine the
persons examined in such inquiry is not
given. Using such evidence would be
violative of the principles of natural
justice. (emphasis supplied).
17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to
record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the
2025:KER:95930
charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on
the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as
expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh
Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, we are of the firm view that the
inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant
pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were
totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral
evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in
support of the charges."
15. Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, appearing for the 4 th respondent,
submitted that a writ petition against an Apex Society will lie
only if there is a public duty and the remedy available to the
petitioner is only under common law. It is submitted that
Articles 309 and 311 will not apply in the case of the petitioner.
The counsel placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench
of this Court in K.S. Sofhi v. Fertilizers and Chemicals
Travancore Limited and Others [1984 KHC 59], wherein a
Division Bench of this Court considered the question whether
the FACT was a 'State' under Article 12 and amenable to the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. Sri. Antony Mukkath, Senior Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 contended that no
enquiry is contemplated under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-
2025:KER:95930
operative Societies Rules. It is contented that the writ petition
is not maintainable against a Co-Operative Society going by the
judgment of a Larger Bench of this Court in Association of
Milma Officers, Ksheerabhavan, Trivandrum & Anr. v.
State of Kerala & Ors. [2015 (1) KHC 779]. It is submitted
that Ext.P37, although issued by the Government, is in
accordance with the Society's bye-laws. Reliance is placed on
the judgment in Mathew Ignitious v. Catholic Syrian Bank
Ltd, Thrissur and others [2019 (5) KHC 835], wherein a
Division Bench of this Court held that no writ petition is
maintainable against a scheduled Bank and that a dispute
arising out of a contract of personal service is not amenable to
the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. In K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on
Irrigation and Drainage & Ors. [(2015) 4 SCC 670], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if a body performing
public duty is amenable to writ jurisdiction, all its decisions are
not subject to judicial review. Only those decisions that have a
public element can be judicially reviewed under the writ
jurisdiction. The Apex Court carved out the following three
2025:KER:95930
exceptions in the case of a contract for personal service, which
is not generally amenable to writ jurisdiction; (1) A public
servant working under the Union of India or State, (2) A person
employed by an authority/body, which is a 'State' within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and (3) A
workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 who raises a dispute regarding the
termination by invoking the machinery under the Act. It is
hence submitted that the remedy of the petitioner is to
approach the Civil Court rather than approaching this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. The contentions raised by Sri P.C. Sasidharan are not
fully relevant in this case. Admittedly, the appointment and the
dismissal of the petitioner were by the State. As such, the
question whether CAPEX is a State does not really arise. For the
same reason, the contention raised by Sri Antony Mukkath that
a writ petition is not maintainable against a Co-operative
Society also does not require any consideration. The judgments
in K.S. Sofhy (supra), Association of Milma Officers (supra),
Mathew Ignitious (supra) and K.K. Saksena (supra) do not
2025:KER:95930
hence apply to the present case. We are concerned with a
situation where; after suspending the petitioner pending
enquiry, the Government itself appointed an Enquiry Officer as
per Ext.P32 and directed him to conduct an enquiry and submit
a report. It is thereafter that the Ext.P33 report was submitted,
and relying on which, the Ext.P37 order of termination was
issued.
18. The question for consideration is whether the
principles that apply to a departmental enquiry apply in this
case. The petitioner cannot be termed as an employee of
CAPEX, since he was not appointed by CAPEX. Being a Managing
Director, he is also not a workman. Though the appointment was
made by the State, no orders were issued fixing the terms of
appointment. Even the period of appointment is not stated in
the order of appointment. The following facts evidence the
above. Admittedly, the petitioner's first appointment as
Managing Director of CAPEX was as per Ext.P5, which only
stated the scale of pay. The conditions of service were later
fixed as per Ext.P7, which says that the petitioner was entitled
to HRA at the State Government rate, TA/DA admissible to State
2025:KER:95930
Government employees, and contributory provident fund,
medical facilities, surrender of earned leave and terminal
benefits as per the norms in force in CAPEX. The petitioner was
thereafter appointed as Managing Director of Autokast Ltd.,
Cherthala. He was again appointed as Managing Director of
CAPEX by Ext.P10 order. Ext.P10 order again says that the
terms and conditions of appointment will be issued separately.
No such orders are later seen to have been issued. It is at that
stage that the petitioner was initially suspended from service as
per Ext.P11. The suspension was later revoked, and he was
reinstated as Managing Director as per Ext.P13 order issued by
the Government. Even at that stage, no orders, fixing the terms
and conditions of service, had been issued. The facts that
followed later have been narrated in the previous paragraphs
and are not being reiterated. Suffice to say that, by Ext.P32
order, the Government appointed an Enquiry Officer for
enquiring into the conduct of the petitioner as Managing
Director, in the light of certain reports submitted by the Finance
Department and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.
The only conclusion possible is that general legal principles
2025:KER:95930
governing the service law will have to be applied, which would
include the principles relating to initiation and finalisation of
departmental enquiry.
19. The legal principles that need to be followed while
conducting an inquiry of such nature are no longer res integra.
In Sathyendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
spoke about the nature of the evidence that is to be considered.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that using evidence recorded in
a preliminary inquiry is not permissible and that even in an ex
parte inquiry, it is necessary to record evidence of the witnesses
to prove the charges. The Court was concerned with the
issuance of a major penalty like termination from service.
20. In State of Uttar Pradesh V. Ram Prakash Singh
[2025 SCC OnLine SC 891], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the requirements of a disciplinary/departmental
enquiry in detail. The first and second issues that were
considered by the Apex Court were (i) whether, in pursuance of
a purported enquiry where there was none to present the case
of the department, no witness was examined in support of the
charges and no document was formally proved, any order of
2025:KER:95930
punishment could validly be made and (ii) whether the
disciplinary authority was justified in placing reliance on a report
of enquiry prepared by the Enquiry Officer who had looked into
documents which were not provided to the respondent and had
arrived at findings of guilt only based on the charge-sheet, the
reply thereto of the respondent and such documents?. The Apex
Court referred to its earlier decisions in Bareilly Electricity
Company Limited v. The Workmen [1971 (2) SCC 617],
wherein it was held that no materials can be relied upon to
establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons
who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to
cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought
to be used, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank
2009(2) SCC 570, wherein it was held that an officer
conducting an enquiry has a duty to arrive at findings in respect
of the charges upon taking into consideration the materials
brought on record by the parties, State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010(2) SCC 772, and Nirmala J.Jhala
v. State of Gujarat 2013(4) SCC 301, and held that only
such materials can be considered which are brought on record in
2025:KER:95930
a manner known to law, that evidence tendered by witnesses
must be recorded in the presence of the delinquent employee,
and that he should be given opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses and that no document should be relied on by the
prosecution without giving copy thereof to the delinquent; all of
the above being the basic principles of natural justice and fair
play in action. The court further held that the documents
referred to in the list of documents forming part of the
annexures to the chargesheet, on which the department seeks
to rely in the enquiry, cannot be treated as legal evidence
worthy of forming the basis for a finding of guilt if the contents
of such documents are not spoken to by persons competent to
speak about them, since a document does not prove itself.
21. In the case at hand, the impugned order refers to
several documents. Going by the dictum laid down by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid judgment, as no enquiry was conducted
and none of the documents were proved in the manner laid
down by the law, the respondents could not have relied on the
said documents to decide to terminate the petitioner. The
petitioner is hence entitled to succeed. However, the prayer for
2025:KER:95930
reinstatement in service as Managing Director cannot be
granted at this stage, in view of the judgment in W.A.No. 2043
of 2023.
The writ petition is allowed in part. Ext.P37 order is set
aside. The respondents shall reconsider the issue from the stage
of Ext.P32 order whereby the 5th respondent was appointed as
Enquiry Officer and complete the process, in accordance with
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the law
stated in the previous paragraphs, at the earliest, at any rate
within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
LEK/dsn
2025:KER:95930
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 36356 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21/06/2007 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
TYPE WRITTEN COPY OF THE SAME
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION MADE IN 'THE
HINDU' ON 04/07/2007 ALONG WITH TYPE WRITTEN
COPY OF THE SAME
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT.) NO.1424/07/ID
DATED 06/11/2007 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20/11/2007 SUBMITTED BY R.JAYACHANDRAN BEFORE
THE SECRETARY, LABOUR
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 1627/07/ID
DATED 31/12/2017 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OF THE
FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT) NO. 1223/2010/ID
DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 27/08/2010
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT) NO. 1729/2010/ID
DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 20/12/2010 OF THE
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO. 854/2011/ID DATED
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 12/07/2011 OF THE UNDER
SECRETARY OF INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF G.O (RT) NO. 865/2011/ID DATED
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 14/07/2011 OF THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT WHEREBY PETITIONER WAS
APPOINTED AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF AUTOKAST
LIMITED LTD
Exhibit P10 LATER AFTER THE LAPSE OF AROUND 5 YEARS
PETITIONER WAS AGAIN APPOINTED AS MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF CAPEX AS PER G.O (RT)
NO.598/2016/ID DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
08/07/2016 OF THE JOINT SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT AND THE
SAME
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT) NO. 437/2019/ID DATED
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 29/05/2019 ALONG WITH TYPE
WRITTEN COPY OF THE SAME
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
NO.1101/2020 INDUSTRIES DATED
2025:KER:95930
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 23/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE
JOINT SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 136/2021 DATED
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 02/02/2021 OF THE SECOND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.
126/2022/ID DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
14/02/2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26/06/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
K2/79/2022 DATED 13/05/2022 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT DATED
14/08/2019 FOR THE PERIOD 2016 TO 2019
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
30/08/2019 OF THE SENIOR AUDIT OFFICER OF THE
OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (ECONOMIC AND
REVENUE SECTOR UNIT)
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 04/02/2021
ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
30/04/2021 OF THE SENIOR AUDIT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
(AUDIT-II), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/06/2023 IN
W.P. (C) NO. 35509 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 31/08/2021
FILED BY JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIES IN W.P(C) NO.9720/2021 BEFORE THIS
HON'BLE COURT ALONG WITH TYPE WRITTEN COPY OF
THE SAME
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O NO.77/2024/ID DATED
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 29/01/2024 OF THE JOINT
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11/04/2023
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/08/2023 IN
W.P. (C) NO. 19763/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/09/2023 IN
R.P NO. 904/2023 IN W.P. (C) 19763/2022 OF
2025:KER:95930
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/12/2023 IN
WRIT APPEAL NO.2043/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
CAPEX/MD/GOVT/2023-24 DATED 12/03/2024 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.K2/192/2021/ID
DATED 13/02/2024 OF THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
08/05/2024 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE
SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/03/2024 IN
W.P (C) NO.6659/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2024 OF
THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P33 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED NIL OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P34 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
13/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P35 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/08/2024
SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P36 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/09/2024 IN
W.P(C) NO.32457/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P37 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
NO.952/2024/ID DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
29/09/2024 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exts.produced along with memo dt.10.3.2025
Ext. P12 English translation of Ext. P12
Ext. P13 English translation of Ext. P13
Ext. P14 English translation of Ext. P14
Ext. P15 English translation of Ext. P15
Ext. P16 English translation of Ext. P16
Ext. P23 English translation of Ext. P23
Ext. P24 English translation of Ext. P24
Ext. P32 English translation of Ext. P32
Ext. P33 English translation of Ext. P33
Ext. P34 English translation of Ext. P34
Ext. P35 English translation of Ext. P35
Ext. P37 English translation of Ext. P37
