IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 4422 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI,L.D.CLERK KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR/PRINCIPAL CO-OPERATIVE TRAINING CENTRE, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION,KOTTARAKKARA. 5. J.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,ADVOCATE, DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER, ROOM NO.2 BALAKRISHNA BUILDINGS,MALLOOR ROAD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.4422 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner, an employee of the third respondent was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on certain allegations of mis-conduct. An enquiry officer was appointed. In spite of carrying on with proceedings for quite a long time, he did not file his report and ultimately the employer changed that enquiry officer. The second enquiry officer carried the proceedings for sometime and later wanted to be relieved of the responsibility. The employer acceded to it. The fifth respondent was thereafter appointed as the enquiry officer. 2. In the interregnum, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and he was re-admitted to duty. WPC4422/2008 -:2:- 3. Petitioner contends that the first among the enquiries has resulted in an enquiry report exonerating him of all the charges. He says that he reliably learnt that there is such a report. He has neither a copy nor the details regarding the identity of that report. The third respondent has come on record asserting that no enquiry report was filed either the first or the second enquiry officer, while the fifth respondent has now submitted an enquiry report. 4. It is not for this Court to sit in judgment for correctness or otherwise of the enquiry report or of the action that may be taken by the third respondent on the basis of the enquiry report. However, the third respondent is a statutory authority. It has its own rules and regulations. Therefore, it is duty bound to take a decision on the enquiry report without delay. It WPC4422/2008 -:3:- is the duty of the employer to act promptly, whether it is a statutory body or not. The regulations also provides further appeal, revision etc, against any punishment, if imposed. 5. Petitioner, being a delinquent employee, is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report and for an opportunity of hearing on the correctness and sustainability of the said report before the third respondent decides to act upon the enquiry report. He is also entitled to be heard on any proposal of the management to impose punishment in terms of the regulations. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the third respondent shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings after giving the petitioner an opportunity to meet the findings in the enquiry report, if any of the findings is adverse to his WPC4422/2008 -:4:- interest and also to state his defence on any proposed punishment. It is clarified that it would be sufficient that if the third respondent draws up such decision tentatively and notifies the petitioner of the same alongwith a copy of the enquiry report and the petitioner could be heard, compositely, on the acceptability of the enquiry report, as also the punishment proposed. Let such a decision be taken within fortyfive days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, since the petitioner, if aggrieved by such decision, would have remedies available within the framework of the regulations of the third respondent, by way of appeal or otherwise. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, sl. Judge. 2-4-2008