Kerala High Court
Nadarsha.A(1657) vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd on 3 March, 2025
2025:KER:17949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 859 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
NADARSHA.A(1657)
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, MANAGER GRADE III SUSPENDED AND
DISMISSED FROM MANANAKKU BRANCH OF KSFE RESIDING AT
ALUVILAKAM, MADANVILA, PERUMATHUR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 303
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER
SRI.S.KRISHNALAL
JAYAPRASAD M R
ASHOK K.V.(K/000316/2024)
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATE OFFICE, BHADRATHA, THRISSUR 680 020
2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF KSFE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE,
BHADRATHA, THRISSUR 680 020
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
WP(C)No.859 of 2019
2
2025:KER:17949
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.859 of 2019
3
2025:KER:17949
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, joined the service of the respondent
herein as a Junior Assistant in the year 1991 and was
subsequently promoted as Manager Gr II. While he was working
in the Mananakku Branch, the petitioner was suspended as per
Ext.P1. Ext.P2 memo of charges containing as many as 18
charges and other various sub-charges was also served on to the
petitioner. The petitioner took up the stand that various
documents - Annexure A1 to A51 - though relied on in Ext.P2,
were not served upon him, while filing separate explanations.
Pending the proceedings, the petitioner states that he was
reinstated in the service. An enquiry officer was later appointed,
and an enquiry was conducted leading to Ext.P8 equiry report.
Evidence from the side of the management was adduced,
whereas it is noticed that on behalf of the petitioner - the
employee, no oral / documentary evidence was relied on. The
enquiry report essentially found against the petitioner on all
counts and on the basis of the findings in the enquiry report, by
2025:KER:17949
Ext.P12, the petitioner was dismissed from service, directing
recovery of an amount of Rs.4,54,297/-, representing the
component of the "Veedappalisha". According to the petitioner,
the order at Ext.P12 was challenged and by Ext.P14, the 1 st
respondent herein took a lenient view and reinstated the
petitioner, at the same time finding that an amount of
Rs.7,50,000/- has to be recovered from the petitioner, which,
according to him, included the "Veedappalisha" component of
Rs.4,54,297/-.
2. It is challenging the findings in Exts. P12/P14 that the
petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri. Jayaprasad, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, and Smt. Pooja Menon, the learned counsel for the
respondents herein.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely
essentially on Ext.P17, a Government Order dated 22.12.2018, to
contend that the findings in Exts.P12/P14, to the extent of the
proposed recovery of the component of "Veedappalisha," could
not be in view of the findings in the Government Order at P17.
2025:KER:17949
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, Smt. Pooja
Menon, on the other hand, would contend that Ext. P17 was with
respect to a Private Chitty Company that too with respect to the
claim made by a subscriber and hence would not apply to the
case of the petitioner, since he was an employee of the 1 st
respondent herein, which is not covered by the findings in Ext.
P17.
6. In any view of the matter, I notice that since the
petitioner has relied on Ext. P17, which was not relied upon by
him during any of the earlier rounds, the petitioner is to point out
the afore with the respondent herein by filing an appropriate
representation.
In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition as
under;
i) The petitioner is to file an appropriate
representation pointing out the facts and figures
as also relying on Ext.P17 Government Order
dated 22.12.2018, within a period of six weeks
from today before the Managing Director of the 1 st
2025:KER:17949
respondent.
ii) If such a representation, is being filed by
the petitioner, the respondents are to consider the
same and pass an order, strictly in accordance
with law, after hearing the petitioner also within a
further period of four weeks thereafter.
iii) I make it clear that I have not
considered the question as regards the
applicability or otherwise of Ext.P17 Government
Order, to the claim of the petitioner herein.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
HKH/03.03.2025
2025:KER:17949
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 859/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE NO.47367
DATED 4.6.2015 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.47367
DATED 19.3.2016 OF CHARGES.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
29.3.2016.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
25.4.2016 TO P2.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO VIDE NO.47367
DATED 19.9.2016 REINSTATED BUT FREEZED.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.47367
DATED 18.10.2016 APPOINTING THE ENQUIRY
OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
27.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT
DATED 29.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMARKS DATED
25.9.2017 TO THE REPORT.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.47367
DATED 3.10.2017 PROPOSAL OF PUNISHMENT.
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
8.11.2017, ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.47367
DATED 18.11.2017 DISMISSING THE
2025:KER:17949
PETITIONER AND DIRECTED TO PAY
RS.4,54,297/- TO THE COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED
6.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION 8339
DATED 8.5.2018 OF THE COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
23.11.2018 IN WPC.NO.37801/2018.
EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.47367/P &
HR DATED 4.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE G,O(RT) NO.906/2018/LD
DATED 22-12-2018.
