IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10748 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.G.USHADEVI, SENIOR ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. T.K.BABU, ENQUIRY OFFICER, ADVOCATE, THENGUMOOTIL BUILDINGS, OPPOSITE HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.3.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 10748 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who is a Senior Assistant Manager in the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation is being proceeded against in departmental proceedings, as evidenced by Exhibit P1 Memo of charges. It is not necessary to undertake a detailed appraisal of the allegations made by the petitioner herein. Suffice it to say that petitioner seeks appointment of an Impartial Enquiry Officer in the place of 3rd respondent. 2. Sri.Majnu Komath, learned standing counsel for the Warehousing Corporation submits that petitioner's apprehension is completely misconceived. Third respondent is an Advocate who practices in the Courts at Ernakulam. He is an Impartial Enquiry Officer. But, nevertheless to allay the apprehension of the petitioner, Warehousing Corporation is agreeable for the appointment of another Advocate as an Enquiry Officer. Petitioner also affirms by the said course of action. Both the parties submit that they have no objection in the Court W.P ( C) No. 10748 of 2008 2 appointing any other Advocate as an Enquiry Officer. 3. I then ascertained the consent of Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate of this Court to act as an Enquiry Officer. He has graciously accepted. Both the counsel have no objection to the appointment of Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj as Enquiry Officer. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass proceedings appointing Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the Memo of charges in Exhibit P1. It is open to the Warehousing Corporation to fix the remuneration of the Enquiry Officer. Initially, an amount of Rs.10,000/- may be paid to Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj. He shall be afforded the requisite facilities for conducting the enquiry. Final remuneration of the Enquiry Officer may be fixed by the Warehousing Corporation, of course, after due consultation with the Enquiry Officer. No further directions are called for in this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 10748 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 W.P ( C) No. 10748 of 2008 2 ORDER 25th May, 2007 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.