Kerala High Court
Ravindran C.A vs State Of Kerala on 31 July, 2025
2025:KER:56422
W.A No.1243 of 2024
1
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 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1243 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.06.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.24468 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
RAVINDRAN C.A.
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. APPU, RETD ACCOUNTS OFFICER (HIGHER GRADE) KERALA
HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD THRISSUR, RESIDING AT
CHALANGATH, VALLIVATTOM P.O, THRISSUR MOB 9744964440,
PIN - 680123
BY ADV SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LABOUR AND SKILL DEPARTMENT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, NEAR
ERNAKULAM NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682018
2025:KER:56422
W.A No.1243 of 2024
2
3 THE HEAD LOAD WORKERS WELFARE BOARD
HEAD OFFICE, NEAR ERNAKULAM NORTH RAILWAY STATION
ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PIN -
682018
BY ADV SHRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SC, KERALA HEADLOAD
WORKERS WELFARE BOARD - KHWWB
SRI.T.K. VIPINDAS, SR.GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.07.2025, THE COURT ON 31.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56422
W.A No.1243 of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated
12.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.24468 of 2021 whereby the learned
Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition against the
appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an amount of
Rs.7,86,862/- has been sought to be recovered from the appellant
on an allegation of supervisory lapse in containing
misappropriation committed by a casual clerk in one of the sub
offices. The very act of misappropriation was detected by the
appellant in his usual verification, leading to lodging of criminal
complaint against the said casual clerk and also leading to
revenue recovery and attachment of her properties to make good
the loss caused to the Board. However, the appellant who was
instrumental in detecting the crime is sought to be penalised by
the Board forgetting the fact that his promptitude approach led to
detection of such a huge loss to the Board. Instead of
2025:KER:56422
W.A No.1243 of 2024
appreciating the good work, he is being penalised which is highly
unethical, demoralising and uncharitable action of the Board
against an employee who served the Board for more than three
decades. The appellant retired from service on 31.03.2021. The
amount of liability was sought to be collected from the Provident
Fund closure amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant had challenged the order of recovery in the writ petition
on the ground that there is no supervisory lapse at all on the part
of the appellant. In fact the appellant was instrumental in
detecting the fraud committed by the casual clerk. Learned
Single Judge erred in permitting the respondents to release the
withheld amount on executing sufficient bond and disposing the
writ petition directing the appellant to execute bond for release of
the amount. Learned Single Judge also failed to consider that
execution of the bond only defers payment but does not
exonerate the person. Even no amount can be recovered from
the Provident Fund closure amount as per Section 10 of the
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
2025:KER:56422
W.A No.1243 of 2024
1952 which provides that the amount standing to the credit of any
member in the Fund shall not in any way be capable of being
assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under
any decree or order of any court in respect of any debt or liability
incurred by the member. Learned Single Judge did not give
reasons as to what supervisory lapse was committed by the
appellant. Moreover, the respondents did not conduct any proper
enquiry before imposing such a major penalty, no show cause
notice and no enquiry report. Only based on the preliminary
enquiry conducted in respect of other employees, he was also
saddled with the order of recovery which is against the provisions
of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board Staff
(Appointment, Conditions of Service, Conduct and Discipline)
Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2002). Even
the provisions of the Rules, 2002 which provides for the procedure
to conduct enquiry was not followed by the respondents herein.
As such, no punishment could have been imposed on the
appellant.
2025:KER:56422
W.A No.1243 of 2024
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently argued the matter and submitted that
the appellant was also instrumental in causing loss to the Board.
Therefore, the order of recovery is correct and no interference is
called for in this appeal, and the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of O.K Bhardwaj v.
Union of India and others [(2001) 9 SCC 180] has held that
even in the case of minor penalties, the enquiry cannot be
dispensed with.
7. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Union of
India and another v. C.P Singh [2004 SCC Online MP 811] has
held that it is not possible to dispense with regular enquiry where
charge is not admitted by the employee and negligence could not
be inferred by the disciplinary authority on its own without even
opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee.
8. On perusal of the record of the writ petition as well as
the writ appeal, we are of the considered opinion that no exclusive
enquiry was conducted against the appellant before imposing
2025:KER:56422
W.A No.1243 of 2024
major penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs.7,86,862/-. On this
ground alone, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside
the impugned judgment of recovery. Moreover, the procedure as
laid down in the Rules 2002 had not been followed and no
opportunity of hearing had been granted to the appellant herein.
Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
cannot be allowed to stand. As a consequence, the impugned
judgment dated 12.06.2024 in W.P(C) No.24468 of 2021 is set
aside. Exts.P5 and P9 orders dated 07.09.2018 and 06.08.2021
(Ext.P9) are also hereby set aside so far as the appellant herein is
concerned.
The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
