IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 1109 of 1995 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.6711/1992 Dated 18/04/1995 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ SRI.J.P.ALEXANDER, 39/671, KARIKKAMURI CROSS ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FERTILIZERS, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, PIN-683501, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. SRI.S.M.JAIN, (FORMERLY ACTING CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., COCHIN, UDYOGAMANDAL-683501) AND NOW WORKING WITH M/S.PARADIP PHOSPHATES LTD., PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, OSHWCS BUILDING, BHUBANESHWAR-751 001. 4. SRI.T.A.MENON, FORMERLY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS) FACT LTD., COCHIN, UDYOGAMANDAL-683501. 5. SRI.V.S.RAMASWAMY, RETIRED GENERAL MARKETING MANAGER, (CAPROLACTAM) FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL-685 501, NOW RESIDING AT 20, VIDYA NAGAR, NEAR COCHIN UNIVERSITY, COCHIN-22. WA.NO.1109/1995 -2- 6. SRI.P.SUDHAKARAN, RETIRED ACTING CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501, NOW WITH M/S.PARADIP PHOSPHATES LTD., PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, OSHWCS BUILDING, BHUBANESHWAR-751 001. 7. SRI.K.MOHANKUMAR, FORMERLY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS) FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501 NOW WITH M/S.PARADIP PHOSPHATES LTD., PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU MARG, OSHWCS BUILDING, BHUBANESHWAR-751001. 8. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR, FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501. 9. P.M.MOHANAN, S/O.P.A.MADHAVAN, P.M.HOUSE, MANJUMEL. 10. K.K.VIVEKANANDAN, FORMERLY DY.MANAGER (VIGILANCE) NOW OFFICER-ON-SPECIAL DUTY FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1109 of 1995 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 order of the disciplinary authority dismissing him from service and also Ext.P2 order of the appellate authority. Incidentally he challenged Ext.P13 charge sheet also. The learned single Judge allowed the original petition quashing Exts.P1 and P2 on the ground that the petitioner has not been served with the enquiry report before imposing punishment on him. But, while disposing of the original petition, the learned Judge made certain observations about the contention of the petitioner regarding the bias on the part of the disciplinary authority and also the Enquiry Officer. According to him, since the petitioner did not co-operate in appointing a chosen person of the Managing Director as dealer of 'ANONE', the said authority was harbouring ill-will towards him which was the real reason for initiating disciplinary proceedings and taking consequential action against him. The Presenting Officer was the beneficiary of the disciplinary action against the petitioner. He got promotion when the petitioner was superseded because of the pendency of disciplinary action. The Enquiry Officer was also biased against him as while working under the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Managing Director alleging that the Enquiry Officer as his superior was not allotting him any meaningful work. He was only given fictional charge. W.A.No.1109/1995 -2- (2). According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge overruled the contentions of the petitioner regarding bias of the officials without adverting to his reply affidavit filed in the original petition or to Ext.P39. We were taken through the observations of the learned Single Judge on the contentions of the petitioner. We notice that many facts were taken to be admitted or at least as not disputed. We also notice that, if the petitioner's reply affidavit was taken into account, the learned Single Judge would not have made such observations. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner was the person who took the initiative for introducing Sultanchand Bimal Prakash as the dealer of ANONE. In fact, the said suggestion came from the Managing Director himself. He made suggestion in an indirect manner by directing to include the dealers ANONE of a rival manufacturer by name Gujarat State Fertilizer Corporation in the list of dealers. In fact, the above-mentioned Sultanchand Bimal Prakash alone was the dealer of ANONE manufactured by the said Corporation. So, the finding of the learned Judge that the said dealer was inducted at the instance of the petitioner is incorrect. We find that the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct. (3). We also notice that, the other points which the appellant/petitioner urged in support of his contention regarding bias have also been overruled by the learned Judge without adverting to his contentions in the reply affidavit. W.A.No.1109/1995 -3- (4). We notice that, pursuant to the direction in the judgment under appeal, further action has been taken by the competent authority. The appellant has been dismissed from service. The said order is under challenge before this Court in O.P.No.14934/96. In view of the above position, we feel that the proper course open to us is to allow the petitioner to raise his contentions regarding bias in that original petition instead of us venturing to finally decide on that point. (5). Accordingly, it is ordered that, the contentions of the appellant/petitioner regarding bias from the part of the disciplinary authority and Enquiry Officer are kept open notwithstanding the finding of the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal. He will be free to urge them in the above original petition. If he has not pleaded those facts, he will be free to amend the original petition if so advised. With the above directions the writ appeal is disposed of. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. MS