Kerala High Court
V.Purushothaman vs Kerala Automobiles Ltd on 7 July, 2025
2025:KER:49727
W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28236 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
V.PURUSHOTHAMAN
MANALIVILA HOUSE, ANCHALIKONAM, PARASSALA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
FORMERLY WORKING AS JUNIOR EXECUTIVE (GRADE),
KERALA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED, ARALLUMOODU P.O.,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.AHAMED
SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ARALLUMOODU P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695123.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED, ARALLUMOODU P.O.,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695123.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.K.K.RAZIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49727
W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013
2
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28236 of 2013
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner entered service of the 1st respondent company
as Office Assistant on 05.02.1986. Later, he was promoted to
the post of Senior Assistant. In 2004, he was granted benefit of
Junior Executive Grade.
2. On 19.2.2013, Ext.P2 show-cause notice was issued
to the petitioner. Following misconducts were pointed out in the
notice:-
1. Making false complaints against the company
and fellow employees.
2. Submitting false complaints with the superiors
with an intention to harass co-employees.
3. Spreading false allegations to outsiders and
other authorities about the company and other
employees.
2025:KER:49727
4. Commission of acts detrimental to the interest
of the company and affecting the fair name
and reputation of the company.
5. Mis-utilizing the position and divulging
information and documents to outsiders
without any authority of law and permission.
3. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 explanation dated
28.2.2013 in response to the show-cause notice. Challenging his
suspension he approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.5326/2013
and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 22.5.2013
directing to complete the enquiry proceedings against the
petitioner within 45 days and granting liberty to the petitioner to
challenge the order of suspension in case the proceedings were
not completed within the said period.
4. In the domestic enquiry two witnesses were
examined on the side of the management and 27 documents
were marked. On the side of the petitioner a witness was
2025:KER:49727
examined and 15 documents were marked. The enquiry officer,
by his report dated 13.9.2013, concluded that the petitioner was
guilty of all misconducts alleged against him as per the show-
cause notice. By memo dated 23.9.2013, Managing Director of
the 1st respondent called upon the petitioner to submit his
response to the enquiry report. Copy of the enquiry report was
also provided to the petitioner along with the memo. Petitioner
submitted a reply on 30.9.2013.
5. After examining the reply of the petitioner, Ext.P19
proceedings was issued by the 2nd respondent on 18.10.2013.
The 2nd respondent agreed with the findings of the enquiry
officer, accepted the same and concluded that the acts of
misconducts committed by the petitioner were very serious and
were detrimental to the interests of the company. It was also
concluded that the petitioner was creating a bad work
environment in the company and the management had lost the
confidence reposed on the petitioner as an employee of the
2025:KER:49727
company. It was noted that no extenuating circumstances
justifying any lenient view were available. Observing so, the
petitioner was dismissed from the service of the company.
6. As an industrial dispute was pending, the company
approached the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam in M.P.No.19/13 in
I.D.No.4/2011 for approval of the action taken by the
management. Notice was issued by the Tribunal to the
petitioner. However, the petitioner did not appear before the
Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal allowed the application
seeking approval and granted liberty to the petitioner to raise
industrial dispute.
7. Petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P19
order by which he was dismissed from service. The respondents
have filed counter affidavit denying the allegations of the
petitioner and disputing his contentions.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
action of the respondents dismissing the petitioner was
2025:KER:49727
arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. Learned counsel contended
that Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1960 was applicable to the petitioner and the
management however conducted a domestic enquiry
considering the petitioner as a workman under the I.D.Act.
Hence, according to the learned counsel, the entire proceedings
against the petitioner was misdirected and illegal. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner was a victim of
harassment on account of his social background and he was
compelled to avail legal remedies in view of continuous
harassment by some senior officials and other employees. The
learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was proceeded
against illegally and the motive was to throw him out of service.
The learned counsel argued that, in the enquiry, no competent
witness was examined by the management and the alleged
misconducts were not proved. The enquiry officer proceeded
with prejudices and concluded that the alleged misconducts
2025:KER:49727
were proved against the petitioner. He contended that all the
allegations against the petitioner were frivolous and hence the
harsh punishment of dismissal from service was
disproportionate and unjust. Learned counsel further submitted
that the petitioner was working in a managerial post and
therefore he could not have availed the remedies under the
Industrial Disputes Act.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent
company submitted that the petitioner was proceeded against
for valid reasons. There were several serious acts of
misconducts committed by the petitioner and his actions spoiled
healthy work environment in the company. He also got indulged
in activities resulting in tarnishing the reputation of the
company. The enquiry was conducted following the principles of
natural justice and ample opportunity was provided to the
petitioner to defend. Petitioner effectively participated in the
enquiry and adduced evidence. The enquiry officer on a proper
2025:KER:49727
analysis of the evidence arrived at the conclusion that the
misconducts alleged against the petitioner were proved. The
Managing Director provided copy of the report and obtained
response from the petitioner. After evaluating the report and
considering all relevant facts and circumstances the 2 nd
respondent concluded that the continuation of the petitioner as
an employee of the company became a threat to the conducive
work atmosphere. Therefore, it was decided to impose
punishment of dismissal. The learned counsel argued that when
the Industrial Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner he did not
turn up and the action taken by the management was approved
by the Tribunal. Though the Tribunal granted liberty to the
petitioner to raise industrial dispute, the petitioner pursued this
writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the company,
the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was a
workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and proper remedy
was to raise an industrial dispute. The learned counsel further
2025:KER:49727
submitted that scope of interference in exercise of the
jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters arising from disciplinary
actions is very limited and therefore this Court may not interfere
with the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
10. The 1st respondent company disputes the
maintainability of this writ petition contending that the
petitioner was a workman and his remedy was to raise an
industrial dispute. The respondents point out that the petitioner
was not working in a managerial post and granting him the
grade of Junior Executive did not make any changes in the
nature of duties and responsibilities. The petitioner on the other
hand relying on Ext.P1 Government Order in which post of
Junior Executive was considered as a Supervisory and
Managerial post submitted that the petitioner was not a
workman and on the other hand he was in a managerial post.
However, the specific averments of the respondents in their
counter affidavit that the petitioner was a workman governed by
2025:KER:49727
the certified standing orders of the company and that "Junior
Executive" was only a clerical grade in the company, have not
been disputed by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit.
Contention of the petitioner regarding the applicability of Kerala
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was also
specifically denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit.
They stated that the company had not adopted the Rules and
hence the petitioner was liable to be proceeded against, treating
him as a workman. There is no denial of this assertion also from
the part of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find anything
improper in conducting the enquiry, considering the petitioner as
a workman. Though the respondents have a contention that this
writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable as
according to them the petitioner's remedy was to invoke the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court will not be
justified in rejecting the writ petition as not maintainable at this
distant point of time for not invoking the statutory remedy since
2025:KER:49727
it was admitted in 2014 and has been pending for more than 11
years.
11. Petitioner has not raised any serious contentions
regarding the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer. Also no
case is established that the findings of the enquiry officer was
not supported by any evidence. The attempt of the petitioner
is to contend that findings of the enquiry officer were not correct
and for advancing this contention the petitioner has been
referring to the evidence on record. It is not within the scope of
a writ petition to re-appreciate the evidence brought on record
in a domestic enquiry, to arrive at conclusions on the basis of
evidence and to substitute findings of the enquiry authority with
the conclusions drawn by the court. Unless it is shown that the
conclusions of the enquiry authority were so perverse or were
not supported by any evidence, there is no scope for reviewing
the findings and conclusions of an enquiry officer. No grave
violations of the principles of natural justice or any fatal
2025:KER:49727
irregularities and procedure are also established. Under such
circumstances, there is no scope for interfering with the findings
of the enquiry authority.
12. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of
the enquiry officer and decided to impose punishment of
dismissal on the petitioner after getting his response. The
disciplinary authority has noticed in Ext.P19 order the reasons
for not adopting a lenient view and imposing the punishment of
dismissal. The authority has taken into account the impact of
the acts of misconducts committed by the petitioner on the work
environment in the company. It was also noted that the
management had lost confidence on the petitioner as an
employee of the company. The disciplinary authority hence
decided to dismiss the petitioner from service after considering
various relevant aspects. The discretion vested with the
disciplinary authority cannot be lightly interfered with. Unless
the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, no
2025:KER:49727
interference is possible while exercising the power of judicial
review. In the case at hand, the punishment cannot be held to
be shockingly disproportionate and hence I don't find any
reason to interfere with the punishment also.
In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:49727
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28236/2013
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER G.O.(MS)NO,.62/2010/ID DATED
22.3.2010.
EXT.P2: COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.KAL/HRD-19/2013
DATED 19.2.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3: COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
28.2.2013.
EXT.P4: COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
NO.5326/2013 DATED 22.5.2013.
EXT.P5: COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEYYATTINKARA DATED 14.8.2013.
EXT.P6: COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 13.9.2013.
EXT.P7: COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER
BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DARTED 24.8.2013.
EXT.P8: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.KAL/HRD-19/2013/624 DATED
23.9.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9: COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.9.2013 FROM THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KAL/HRD-31/2012/184
DATED 10.2.2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER
RTI ACT.
EXT.P11: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA
DATED 29.9.11.
EXT.P12: COPY OF THE FIR NO.1643/2011 OF NEYYATTINKARA
POLICE STATION DATED 1.10.2011.
EXT.P13: COPY OF MEMO NO.KAL/HRD-19/2011/183 DATED
29.9.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P14: COPY OF LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER DATED
4.10.2011 TO THE MANAGER, HRD, KERALA
AUTOMOBILES.
2025:KER:49727
EXT.P15: COPY OF WARNING NOTICE NO.KAL/HRD-20/2011/220
DATED 12.11.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P16: COPY OF EXPLANATION LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER
DATED 5.2.2013.
EXT.P17: COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEYYATTINKARA DATED 29.1.13.
EXT.P18: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
24.7.2013 BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR
SCHEDULED CASTES.
EXT.P19: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KAL/HRD-19/2013/658
DATED 18.10.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
