IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31643 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MAJOR R. HARIHARAN PILLAI, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER (POLITICAL SCIENCE), SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE, TRICHUR - 11 BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.P.S.ABHISHEK By ADV.SMT.V.P.SEEMANTHINI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ROUND, NORTH TRICHUR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE, TRICHUR. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF N.C.C. N.C.C. DIRECTORATE, KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP, COTTON HILL BUNGLAW, TRIVANDRUM - 10 4. THE COMMANDING OFFICER, 24 (K) BN N.C.C. KANATTUKARA, TRICHUR – 11. 5. THE GROUP COMMANDER, N.C.C.GROUP/HEADQUARTERS, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN.35. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, ALONG WITH REPORT NO.61 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31643 of 2008 & Report No.61 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioner is a Selection Grade Lecturer in Sree Kerala Varma College, Trichur. Disciplinary action was taken against him by the college authorities which ended in Ext.P6 order of punishment. As per Ext.P6, he was imposed a punishment of barring increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. Pending enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension and by Ext.P6 order he was reinstated in service. However, there was an observation in Ext.P6 that he will be allowed to re-join duty only after relinquishing his NCC duties in the college. Challenging Ext.P6 order, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal before the Tribunal under the University Act, as Appeal No.3 of 2008 and the same is pending. W.P.(C) No.31643/2008 & Report NO.61 2 2. In this writ petition, though the petitioner challenge Exts.P3 and P6 orders, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already invoked the Appellate remedy for redressal of his grievance, he cannot simultaneously invoke the writ jurisdiction. Further, the Appellate remedy is an effective alternate remedy. In such circumstances, we decline jurisdiction as against Exts.P3 and P6 orders at this stage. 3. Smt.V.P.Seemanthini, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is due to retire on November, 2009, and before attaining superannuation, there may a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the same. 4. Though the University Tribunal is not made a party to this proceedings but the Management of the college is already a party, we direct the University Tribunal to consider the request of the petitioner for early disposal of the matter, in case, an application to that effect is made along with a copy of this W.P.(C) No.31643/2008 & Report NO.61 3 judgment, so that the petitioner may get a final verdict before he attains the age of superannuation. 5. The next challenge is against Ext.P9 letter issued by the NCC authorities. That is only an order disposing the representation made by the petitioner. Ext.P9 contains the factual statement of what had happened. However, under clause (e) in paragraph 2 of Ext.P9 order, it is observed that the onus of relinquishing his commission/removal from the post of NCC officer of the institution lies with the College Administration. This observation of the authorities may perhaps influence the mind of the Tribunal in finally deciding the appeal, submits the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal before the Tribunal, Ext.P9 order in no way shall adversely affect the petitioner's right to take up all the contentions and the Tribunal will decide the issue arising in the appeal, untrammelled by anything contained in Ext.P9. Being a college under the Cochin Devaswom Board, the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner happened to be brought under the notice of the W.P.(C) No.31643/2008 & Report NO.61 4 Ombudsman, who submitted a report, which is produced as Ext.P7 in this case. The said report is closed and we make it clear that the observation in the report, if any, touching the disciplinary action, will not adversely affect his right of appeal being considered on merit. As such, it is not necessary to quash Ext.P9 and it will be pre-determining the issue of competency as to which of the authority will be competent to direct relinquishment of duties of NCC from a particular college. 6. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition and after the hearing of the matter, today a petition is filed producing Ext.P11, and seeking to amend the writ petition by incorporating the prayer as against Ext.P11 also. For the purpose of disposal of considering the contentions raised in the additional C.M.P., produced as Ext.P11, we allow the amendment. At the same time, we add to say that Ext.P11 is only a show cause notice issued to the petitioner, and therefore, it is perfectly within the right of the petitioner to submit a reply and the petitioner will be entitled to take up all the contentions including the question of W.P.(C) No.31643/2008 & Report NO.61 5 jurisdiction and also competency of the officer who issued Ext.P11 show cause notice. It is stated that the petitioner has already filed an explanation/objection to Ext.P11. If so, the authorities will necessarily consider such contention while disposing of the matter. 7. It is submitted that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner on a private complaint. We cannot possibly grant any relief in this writ petition. Issue photo copy of the judgment urgently. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nj.