Kerala High Court
M.Radhakrishnan vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 25 June, 2025
2025:KER:45254
W.A Nos.163 & 169 of 2020
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.
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 163 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2015 IN WPC NO.29979
OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
M.RADHAKRISHNAN
ASSISTANT SALESMAN, SUPPLY CO (MAVELI STORE), POOKOTTUR
MAJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT JANAKI NIVAS,
KOTTAPADY, KOTTAKKAL MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. (SR.)
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, REGISTERED
OFFICE AT MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
KOCHI 682 020.
2025:KER:45254
W.A Nos.163 & 169 of 2020
2
2 THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, REGIONAL
OFFICE, YAMBO TOWERS, NEAR MALAYALA MANORAMA, T.B.
ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 014.
3 THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER
(P AND A), THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD,
GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 020.
SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.169/2020, THE COURT ON 25.06.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45254
W.A Nos.163 & 169 of 2020
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 169 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2015 IN WP(C) NO.2016
OF 2009 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
M.RADHAKRISHNAN
ASSISTANT SALESMAN (UNDER SUSPENSION), MAVELI STORE,
KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, VALAPAD,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAVELI BHAVAN,
GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN 682 020
2 THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER (P & A)
KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, MAVELI BHAVAN,
GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN 682 020
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.163/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45254
W.A Nos.163 & 169 of 2020
4
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeals filed under Section 5 of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated
13.08.2015 passed in W.P(C) Nos.29979 of 2014 and 2016 of
2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the
writ petitions.
2. Since the issues involved in both the cases are similar
and intrinsically connected, we propose to dispose the same by a
common judgment.
3. The facts of W.P (C) No.29979 of 2014 are taken up for
the purpose of deciding these appeals.
4. The appellant had prayed for the following reliefs in
WP(C) No.29979 of 2014.
a. Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding
the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders
promoting the petitioner as Junior Assistant from the
date on which his immediate junior was promoted.
2025:KER:45254
W.A Nos.163 & 169 of 2020
b. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered
for promotion as Junior Assistant with effect from the
date of promotion of his juniors in Exts.P2 and P3.
c. Such other relief that the Hon'ble Court feel deem fit
and necessary in the facts and circumstance of the
case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
learned Single Judge failed to consider that so long as there is no
rule prohibiting promotion during pendency of the disciplinary
proceedings, the court ought to have directed promotion of the
appellant. Learned Single Judge also failed to consider the fact
that the punishment proposed as per Annexure A5 show cause
notice is disproportionate looking to the allegations of misconduct
levelled against the appellant. Therefore, the writ petition ought
to have been allowed.
6. It is apparent from the prayer clause that the appellant
wants promotion to the post of Junior Assistant from the date on
which his immediate junior was promoted. The respondents have
filed a statement contending therein that the appellant was
2025:KER:45254
W.A Nos.163 & 169 of 2020
suspended and thereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated
by issuing charge sheet which was the subject matter in W.P.(C)
No.2016 of 2009. However, it is stated that the appellant was
reinstated in service and that since disciplinary proceedings are
pending, he was not entitled to be promoted to the post of Junior
Assistant.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that it is settled law that during pendency of the
departmental proceedings, the name of the candidate cannot be
considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee unless he
fulfils the criteria laid down by the DPC and no consideration at all
is required, and therefore, the learned Single Judge has not
committed any error and the writ appeals are liable to be
dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
9. Learned Single Judge, after considering the records of
the case as well as the law on the subject, came to the conclusion
2025:KER:45254
W.A Nos.163 & 169 of 2020
that no relief can be granted to the appellant and dismissed the
writ petitions. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant
was also not able to point out any enabling Rules/Provision of the
respondent-Corporation entitling the appellant to seek promotion
during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. In the absence
of specific Rules with regard to promotion during pendency of
departmental enquiry, the learned Single Judge was right in
dismissing the writ petitions.
10. We do not find any error in the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge. Accordingly, both the writ appeals stand
dismissed. No order as to costs.
The respondents would be at liberty to pass final orders in
the disciplinary proceedings, if not already passed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
2025:KER:45254
W.A Nos.163 & 169 of 2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CIVIL SUPPLIES
SERVICE RULES 1978 (RELEVANT PORTION).
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED IN
THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 10.10.2011.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED IN
THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 110.10.2011.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PAMPHLET ISSUED BY THE
SUPPLY CO TRADE UNION SAMYUKTA SAMARA
SAMITHY.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
13.7.15 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE
APPELLANT.
2025:KER:45254
W.A Nos.163 & 169 of 2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES
SERVICE RULES 1978
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED IN
THE MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DATED 10-10-2011
ANNEXURE A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED IN
THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 11-10-2011
ANNEXURE A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE PAMPHLET ISSUED BY THE
SUPPLYCO TRADE UNION SAMYUKTA SAMARA SAMITHY
DATED 12-07-2015
ANNEXURE A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
13-7-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE
APPELLANT.
