Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore ... vs C.H.Amaranadh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1587 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1587 Ker
Judgement Date : 13 February, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore ... vs C.H.Amaranadh on 13 February, 2026

W.A. No.238 of 2026

                                : 1 :-

                                                   2026:KER:12648


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                   &

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

   FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 25TH MAGHA, 1947

                         WA NO. 238 OF 2026

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.1734

OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7:

     1        FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED,
              REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
              AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI-682303, KERALA.

     2        CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
              FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED,
              AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI-682303, KERALA.

     3        GENERAL MANAGER(OPERATIONS)
              FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED,
              AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI-682303, KERALA

     4        DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(PRODUCTION)
              FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCOFRE LIMITED,
              AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI-682303, KERALA.

     5        GENERAL MANAGER
              COCHIN DIVISION, FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS
              TRAVANCORE LIMITED, AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI-682303,
              KERALA.

     6        GENERAL MANAGER(HUMAN RESOURCES)
              FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED,
              AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI-682303, KERALA.

     7        DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(HUMAN RESOURCES0
              FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED,
 W.A. No.238 of 2026

                                      : 2 :-

                                                            2026:KER:12648


              AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI-682303, KERALA.


              BY ADVS.
              SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
              SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
              SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
              SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
              SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM



RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

              C.H.AMARANADH
              AGED 55 YEARS
              SENIOR DEPUTY MANAGER, FACT -CD, AMBALAMEDU,
              KOCHI-682303, KERALA.
               ADV.THULASI K.RAJ

       THIS     WRIT        APPEAL   HAVING     BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD    ON
11.02.2026,           THE    COURT   ON        13.2.2026   DELIVERED     THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.A. No.238 of 2026

                                   : 3 :-

                                                        2026:KER:12648


                SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
                                    &
                       P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
                   -------------------------------------
                         W.A. No.238 of 2026
                    ---------------------------------
                Dated this the 13th day of February 2026

                              JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J

This intra-court appeal is filed by respondents 1 to 7 in W.P.

(C)No.1734/2019, challenging the judgment dated 14.07.2025,

allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, in part.

2. The respondent herein/writ petitioner was working as a

Senior Deputy General Manager(Production) in Cochin division of

the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (hereinafter

referred to as 'FACT,' for short). While so, he was visited with

disciplinary proceedings leading to Ext.P6 order, imposing a

penalty of censure. Even though the respondent herein challenged

the same by filing an appeal, the same ended in dismissal. The

disciplinary authority had found the respondent guilty of

misconduct under Rule 17 of The Fertilisers and Chemicals

Travancore Limited Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). It is

challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the afore Rule, the

respondent herein filed the writ petition seeking the following

: 4 :-

2026:KER:12648

reliefs:

"i) To strike down Rule 17(c) and the explanation provided after Rule 17(d) of FACT CDA Rules as unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

ii) To declare that Rule 17(c) and the explanation provided after Rule 17(d) of FACT CDA Rules is unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P1,P4,P6 and P8 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary."

3. The learned single judge, after considering the materials

on record and hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition in part

and the proceedings taken against the respondent by relying on

Rule 17 (b) and (c) of the Rules was set aside.

4. Heard Adv.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants and Adv.Thulasi.K.Raj, the learned

counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

only grievance of the appellants is regarding the interpretation

given by the learned single judge to Rule 17 of the Rules. He

submitted that Rule 17 had been framed in conformity with the

guidelines issued by the Department of Public Enterprises and the

interpretation given by the learned single judge will have wide

ramification since, it will effectively collapse the model rules also.

He further submitted that the interpretation given by the learned

: 5 :-

2026:KER:12648

single judge will also lead to the employees indulging in unlawful

financial transactions, on the guise of loan and that the said

interpretation is incorrect.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are

no grounds to interfere with the same. She submitted that the

Rule is meant to apply for persons or firms having official dealings

with the employees and not to the transactions of the employees

inter se.

7. It is to be taken note that the learned single judge, while

disposing of the writ petition has not allowed the prayer of the

respondent/writ petitioner seeking declaration of Rule 17 of the

Rules, as unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. Instead, the learned single judge has only

set aside the punishment imposed on the respondent, by

interpreting Rule 17 of the Rules in his favour. As stated earlier,

the appellants are only aggrieved by the interpretation given to

Rule 17(b) & (c). It is also pertinent to note that the

respondent/writ petitioner has not filed any writ appeal

challenging the impugned judgment, in so far as it negated the

relief sought by him for declaring Rule 17(b) & (c) as

unconstitutional. If so, in the light of the afore facts and

: 6 :-

2026:KER:12648

circumstances, we do not deem it fit to probe deep into the

interpretation of Rule 17 and are of the view that this writ appeal

can be dismissed, by clarifying that the judgment rendered by the

learned Single Judge will not act as a precedent and also by

leaving open the question of interpretation of Rule 17 to be

considered in an appropriate case.

Ergo, this writ appeal is dismissed, by clarifying that the

impugned judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.1734/2019 will not be

treated as a precedent and by leaving open the interpretation of

Rule 17 of the Rules.