Kerala High Court
Sunil Kumar R vs The Kerala Shipping And Inland ... on 26 September, 2025
W.P.(C) No.30593 of 2021 1
2025:KER:72217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 4TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30593 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SUNIL KUMAR R.,AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. G. RAGHAVAN, AMBIKAMANDIRAM,
KARIYANGIL COLONY, PARUTHIKUZHI P.O.,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
SRI.JINSON OUSEPH
SMT.CHITRA VIJAYAN
SHRI.SHYAM KUMAR M.P
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION
CORPORATION LTD. -( KSINC)
REPRESENTED BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
UDAYA NAGAR ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI 682 020.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION
(KSINC), UDAYA NAGAR ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
KOCHI 682 020.
3 THE COMPANY SECRETARY,
KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION
(KSINC), UDAYA NAGAR ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
KOCHI 682 020.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE, SC, KERALA SHIPPING AND
INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION LTD. - KSINC
SHRI.ADARSH MATHEW
SMT.MERLINE MATHEW
SMT.CELINE JOHN
W.P.(C) No.30593 of 2021 2
2025:KER:72217
SMT.SREELEKSHMI G.
SMT.MEHNAZ P. MOHAMMED
SHRI.ANIRUDH G. KAMATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.30593 of 2021 3
2025:KER:72217
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.30593 of 2021
.................................................................
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash
Exts.P2, P3 and P8.
2. Petitioner entered the service of the 1 st respondent as a peon
in the year 2004, and his probation was declared as per Ext.P1 order. It
is submitted that the petitioner got married in the year 2001, and he,
along with his wife, had to undergo continuous treatment for infertility
from 2003 onwards, and due to the same, he had to go to Kollam,
where his wife resides, at various intervals for staying with her as per
the advice of the doctors. As a result of the prolonged treatment, he and
his wife had to face so many other health issues, for which also they
had to take treatment. On earlier occasions of absenting from duty, the
petitioner was prompt in intimating the matter of treatment for infertility
to his immediate superiors. While so Ext.P2 show cause notice was
issued, wherein the petitioner was intimated that a decision had already
been taken to remove him from service, and the petitioner was directed
to show cause as to why such action should not be taken against him.
According to the said direction in Ext.P2, the petitioner appeared before
2025:KER:72217
the 2nd respondent and attended for a hearing. Thereafter, Ext.P3 order
was issued, removing the petitioner from service w.e.f 29.01.2020.
Aggrieved by the same, Ext.P6 appeal was preferred by the petitioner
before the Managing Committee of the 1st respondent, and the said
appeal was also dismissed as per Ext.P8. It is aggrieved by the same
that the petitioner has approached this Court. The specific case of the
petitioner is that he had to avail leave only for a valid reason, i.e, to
undergo treatment at infertility clinics. Thereafter, as the treatment was
not fruitful, the petitioner adopted a female child, as evident from Ext.P4
order. It is submitted that the action evidenced by Exts.P2, P3 and P8 is
without following the procedure contemplated in the Kerala Shipping
and Inland Navigation Corporation Limited Service Rules, 1979 (in
short, "Rules 1979"), a copy of which has been handed over to the
Court by the standing counsel for the 1st respondent.
3. On the contrary the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Corporation would submit that petitioner was continuously
absent from duty and taking it into consideration a show cause notice
was issued and as the explanation was not satisfactory, they have
taken a decision as per Ext.P3 to remove the petitioner from service
and valid reasons have been stated in Ext.P3 to remove the petitioner
from service. Therefore, it is submitted that no interference is called for
by this Court.
2025:KER:72217
4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
5. Ext.P2 is a show cause notice, wherein the authorities have
entered a finding to terminate the service of the petitioner and directed
the petitioner to show cause against the same. Petitioner appeared
before the authorities, and soon thereafter Ext.P3 order was issued
terminating the service of the petitioner. Though an appeal was
preferred, in which a specific contention was taken by the petitioner that
the removal from service is without following the procedures as
contemplated in the Rules 1979, the same was not considered by the
appellate authority and Ext.P3 order of removal from service was
confirmed. For a proper consideration of the contentions on both sides,
it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of the Rules 1979.
Rule 3 of Part VI deals with punishments, and Rule 4 of Part VI speaks
about disciplinary authorities. Rule 4 is extracted below:
"4 DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITIES:
i. The authorities which may impose on an employee a
minor penalty shall be the immediate superior authority or any
higher authority, provided he is not below the rank of a Grade II
Officer.
ii. The authority which may impose on an employee a
major penalty shall be the Managing Director, provided that in the
case of an Officer belonging to Grade-I and II he shall not exercise
the powers of dismissal or removal from service except with the
approval of the Board.
iii. No Order imposing a penalty on an employee shall be
passed except after;
a. the employee is served with a charge sheet stating
2025:KER:72217
briefly the contents of charge and of the allegations
on which they are based and is given an opportunity
to file a written statement of defense;
b. the written statement of defense, if any is furnished
by the employee within the time limit specified and if
no time limit is specified within a reasonable period, is
scrutinized by the authority who served the charge
sheet.
c. An oral enquiry is conducted by an Officer other
than the authority who served the charge sheet,
unless the employee charged agrees to the charge,
and a reasonable opportunity is given at such enquiry
for the defendant to produce witnesses and
documents and explain his case, and
d. The report of the Enquiry Officer is studied by the
authority who is competent to impose the penalty and
he is satisfied that the charge has been sufficiently
proved to warrant the penalty.
iv The record of proceedings in such cases shall include:
a. A copy of the charge sheet.
b. The written statement of defence, if any.
c. The oral evidence taken during the enquiry, if any.
d. The documentary evidence, if any, concerning the
course of the enquiry, or copies thereof,
e. Report of the enquiry officer setting out the
findings on each charge and the reasons therefor,
and
f. The final orders with reasons, disposing of the
case.
v. The disciplinary authority may nominate as Enquiry
Officer any employee including one subordinate to him. In case
where an Enquiry Officer has been nominated, as stated above, the
disciplinary authority will have the right, for reasons to be stated, to
differ with the findings of the enquiry officer.
vi Where two or more employees are concerned in any
2025:KER:72217
case, the disciplinary authority may proceed against them in a
common proceedings."
Going by Rule 4, especially Rule 4(3), no order imposing a penalty on
an employee shall be passed except after the employee is served with
a charge sheet stating briefly the contents of the charge and of the
allegations on which they are based and is given an opportunity to file a
written statement of defence. After receipt of the written statement of
defence, an oral enquiry is to be conducted by an officer other than the
authority who served the charge sheet, and a reasonable opportunity is
to be given at such enquiry for the defendant to produce witnesses and
documents and to explain his case. The report of the enquiry officer is
to be studied by the authority, who is competent to impose penalty and
he should be satisfied that the charge has been sufficiently proved to
warrant the penalty. A detailed procedure has been provided regarding
the imposition of penalty on an employee in the Rules 1979. A perusal
of Ext.P3 order of removal clearly revealed that none of those
procedures have been followed by the respondent Corporation while
issuing the same. The appellate authority also did not properly consider
the contentions raised by the petitioner, specifically relying on the said
Rules.
6. The 1st respondent Corporation has a definite set of Service
Rules which clearly provide for the procedure to be followed while
2025:KER:72217
initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee, which has been
enumerated in Rule 4 of the Rules 1979. Going by the pleadings, it is
without any doubt that none of the procedures have been followed while
issuing Ext P3 order. Though these aspects were brought to the notice
of the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent in Ext.P6 appeal, the
same were not even considered by the appellate authority. At the stage
of show cause notice itself, Ext.P2, the management has taken a
decision to remove the petitioner from service and after hearing the
petitioner, Ext.P3 order has been issued dismissing him from service.
The action of the 1st respondent is absolutely arbitrary and illegal which
is not only in clear violation of the Service Rules 1979 but also the
constitutional mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India which
clearly mandates that no employee shall be dismissed or removed or
reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed
of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard in respect of those charges. It is further provided in Article 311
that where the authority proposes after such inquiry, to impose the
employee any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis
of the evidence adduced during such inquiry. It is a settled position of
law that the delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the charge
sheet and to reply to the same before a punishment is imposed. Thus, it
is clear that the punishment imposed as per Ext.P3 is in clear violation
2025:KER:72217
of the Service Rules of the 1 st respondent Corporation and also the
mandate of the constitutional provisions.
7. Another disturbing fact to be noticed is that Ext.P3 order of
punishment is issued by a high-ranking officer of the Indian
Administrative Service, and the appeal against the punishment has
been rejected by the Board of Directors, which is chaired by a former
officer of the Indian Administrative Service. The Managing Director,
while vested with statutory and administrative authority, is bound by the
Constitution of India and the Service Rules, and is also required to
follow the principles of natural justice. The dismissal of the petitioner,
who was working in a lower category as a peon, without even holding
an inquiry, reflects an arbitrary exercise of power. Such conduct
undermines administrative fairness, institutional discipline and sets a
dangerous precedent of personal authority overruling legal process.
The dismissal of the petitioner without inquiry is not just an illegality but
an exhibition of a "king-like" behaviour which is arbitrary, unaccountable
and against democratic governance.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances,
I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition as follows:
1. Exts.P2, P3 and P8 are set aside.
2. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith and shall be
paid all monetary benefits, including arrears of salary for the
2025:KER:72217
period he was kept out of service as per Ext.P3 order.
3. It is made clear that setting aside of Exts.P2, P3 and P8 will not
stand in the way of the authorities in initiating fresh proceedings
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Shipping
and Inland Navigation Corporation Limited Service Rules, 1979,
especially Rule 4 of Part VI dealing with disciplinary authorities
and the mandate of the Constitution of India.
4. The 1st and 2nd respondents shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twentyfive thousand only) to the petitioner within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the
judgment.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
2025:KER:72217
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30593/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A-9/355/2006
DATED 01/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 17/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REMOVAL IN NO A-
9/355/2020 DATED 04/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN J.J.O.P. NO.
158/2020 DATED 19/01/2021 OF THE SIT
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MADHURAI.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
KSINC SERVICE RULES DATED NIL.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL /REVIEW PETITION
DATED 01.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC 17874 OF
2021 DATED 03/09/2021 OF THIS HONBLE
COURT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER IN NO. A-
9/355/2021 DATED 28/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE
IST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 (a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 17/07/2020.
Exhibit R1 (b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 24/07/2020
Exhibit R1 (c) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 17/08/2020
Exhibit R1 (d) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 17/08/2023.
Exhibit R1 (e ) TRUE COPY OF NOTE DATED 25/08/2020
Exhibit R1 (f) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.9/355/2020 DATED
04/09/2020
Exhibit R1 (g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 21/09/2020.
Exhibit R1 (h) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS VIDE ORDER NO. A-9/355/2021
