IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27943 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.MURUKESAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, GATE KEEPER, KALRALI SREE THEATRE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CHALACHITHRA KALA BHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CHALACHITHRA KALA BHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1-2 SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.27943 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as a Gate Keeper in Kairali- Sree Theatre, Thrissur, a theatre run by the 1st respondent. 2. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, by Ext.P4 show cause notice, the petitioner was called upon to show cause, by he should not be proceeded against for the allegations mentioned therein. On receipt of Ext.P4, the petitioner filed his reply by Ext.P5. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, the 2nd respondent, issued Ext.P6 proceedings dated 30/09/2009 rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner and conveying his decision to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. It was also informed that until further orders, he should not be admitted for duty as well. It is challenging Ext.P6, this writ petition is filed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 WP(C) No.27943/2009 -2- & 2, where it is stated that the petitioner was a daily waged employee working as a Gate Keeper, and that it was pursuant to Ext.R2(a) report, that disciplinary action was initiated. 4. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions regarding the unsustainability of the proceedings, and incorrectness of the facts stated therein, at this stage, this Court will not be justified in examining the correctness or otherwise of the facts, which are alleged against the petitioner. However, in view of the allegations raised against him, as disclosed from Exts.R2(a), P4 & P6, it cannot be said that there is no primafacie case against the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, the only direction that is possible is to direct that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be expeditiously completed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry is being held at Thiruvananthapuram, and that the petitioner's statement also has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Now that the enquiry has reached at this stage, it is WP(C) No.27943/2009 -3- directed that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg