[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anju P vs The Kozhikode District Merchants ... on 6 February, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:10013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36595 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANJU P
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. BAIJU.K.V,
ANANDAKRISHNA,
CHERUKUNNUMMAL VELLIPARAMBA 6/2
P.O. VELLIPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673008.
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SHRI.ANSHIN K.K
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT MERCHANTS WELFARE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.C 3151
FARROK P.O.KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 673631.
2026:KER:10013
W.P.(C) No.36595/2025
:2:
2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
MERCHANTS WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
NO.C 3151, FARROK P.O. KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
PIN - 673631.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28.01.2026, THE COURT ON 06.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:10013
W.P.(C) No.36595/2025
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.36595 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who was the Secretary of the
1st respondent-Kozhikode District Merchants Welfare Co-
operative Society Limited, is before this Court aggrieved by the
penalty of termination from service imposed on her.
2. The petitioner states that she was appointed
to the post of Secretary of the 1st respondent-Society on
14.07.2017. Some of the Managing Committee members of
the Society resigned, resulting in loss of quorum of the
Managing Committee. Consequently, an Administrative
Committee was appointed.
2026:KER:10013
3. The Administrative Committee suspended the
petitioner as per Ext.P1 order dated 16.05.2023 for frivolous
reasons, contends the petitioner. When a Managing
Committee assumed office, the Society constituted a
Disciplinary Sub Committee and Ext.P2 charge memo dated
05.12.2023 was issued to the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer
was appointed.
4. According to the petitioner, she was not paid
due Subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension.
The petitioner worked in the Society from 01.05.2023 to
16.05.2023 and the salary for the said period was not paid.
Though the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to arrange
payment of Subsistence Allowance and salary, no action was
taken.
5. The Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P6 report
dated 07.05.2025 finding the petitioner guilty. The Chairman of
the Disciplinary Sub Committee issued Ext.P7 show-cause
notice dated 19.05.2025, to which the petitioner submitted
2026:KER:10013
Ext.P8 explanation dated 31.05.2025. The petitioner states
that the Disciplinary Sub Committee failed to afford the
petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. Without properly
considering the explanation and in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice, the Disciplinary Sub Committee
issued Ext.P9 order dated 09.06.2025 dismissing the petitioner
from service.
6. The petitioner preferred Ext.P10 statutory
appeal before the 2nd respondent. Without giving any
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the appeal
was rejected approving the dismissal order, as per Ext.P11
appellate order dated 27.08.2025. The petitioner states that the
disciplinary proceedings are vitiated as no Subsistence
Allowance was paid to the petitioner during the enquiry. The
petitioner was not given an effective opportunity to defend the
disciplinary proceedings. Neither the Disciplinary Committee
nor the appellate authority gave opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner. Exts.P6, P9 and P11 are therefore
2026:KER:10013
liable to be set aside.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
8. Ext.P6 is the enquiry report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer. Ext.P6 would show that the petitioner
participated in the enquiry and opportunity was given to the
petitioner to defend the enquiry. The petitioner has no case
that the petitioner had offered documentary evidence which
was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has no
case that the petitioner had requested the Enquiry Officer to
examine defence witness and the Enquiry Officer refused such
examination. In the circumstances, I do not find prima facie
material to interfere with Ext.P9.
9. The petitioner would argue that the petitioner
was not given an opportunity of personal hearing by the
Disciplinary Sub Committee or the appellate authority. As the
petitioner was participating in the enquiry proceedings and the
petitioner had submitted explanation to the enquiry report, a
2026:KER:10013
further opportunity of personal hearing at the instance of the
Disciplinary Sub Committee is not warranted.
10. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan [(1983) 3
SCC 387], the petitioner would argue that the enquiry
proceeding should be declared as vitiated for non payment of
Subsistence Allowance. In this regard, I find that the petitioner
is a resident of Kozhikode and the enquiry proceedings were
conducted in Kozhikode itself. The petitioner participated in
the enquiry proceedings. There is no material on record to
come to a conclusion that non-payment of Subsistence
Allowance has forced the petitioner to remain absent from
enquiry proceedings. In the circumstances, though the
petitioner is entitled to payment of Subsistence Allowance for
the period of suspension, the enquiry proceedings themselves
cannot be declared as vitiated.
11. However, I find that against the dismissal of
the petitioner from service, the petitioner had preferred a
2026:KER:10013
statutory appeal. While considering the statutory appeal, the
petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of personal
hearing. Had the appellate authority gave opportunity of
personal hearing, the petitioner could have brought to the
notice of the appellate authority any illegality in the findings
and punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Sub Committee.
The order of the Disciplinary Sub Committee dismissed the
petitioner from service. Considering the severe punishment
imposed on the petitioner, the appellate authority ought to have
given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
12. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with
the following directions:
(i) The appellate order at Ext.P11 is set
aside. The appellate authority is directed to
reconsider Ext.P10 appeal preferred by the
petitioner and take a decision thereon after
giving an opportunity of personal hearing to
the petitioner.
2026:KER:10013
(ii) The respondents are directed to pay
to the petitioner Subsistence Allowance as per
Rules for the period during which the
petitioner was kept under suspension, within a
period of two months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/04.02.2026
2026:KER:10013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 36595 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED
16.05.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED
05.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE DISCIPLINARY SUB-COMMITTEE.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
24.02.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
04.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
15.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED
07.05.2025.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
19.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE DISCIPLINARY SUB-COMMITTEE.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
31.05.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025
ISSUED BY THE DISCIPLINARY SUB-
COMMITTEE DISMISSING THE PETITIONER
FROM SERVICE.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY STATUTORY APPEAL MEMORANDUM
DATED 07.08.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
