IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 775 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4796/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- P.S. RADHAMONEY, SWEEPER, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA, MOORIKKULAM, AVALLOOKKUNNU P.O., SOUTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT/ REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR, MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.,(COIRFED) ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. ANIL K.R., MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING, FEDERATION LTD., COIRFED(ALAPPUZHA). 4. SREEKUMAR, PERSONNEL MANAGER, (ENQUIRY OFFICER) COIRFED ALAPPUZHA. 5. S.NASSI, WORKS MANAGER, R.C.P. UNIT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA. BY STANDING COUNSEL SHRI. K.S. HARIHARAPUTRAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 775 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. She was appointed as a Sweeper, under the dying in harness scheme, under the second respondent, Apex Co-operative Society. Recently, she was transferred to a manufacturing unit of the Society. There, she was asked to serve hot water and tea to the workmen engaged in the unit. The appellant felt that that is not part of her duty and therefore she declined to do the work. But, the Management thought that it was an act of insubordination and therefore, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant. By Ext.P2, she was suspended from service. She was also served with Ext.P3 memo of charges. 2. The appellant has also raised an allegation that the 4th respondent misbehaved towards her. It was a conduct unbecoming of the Manager of the second respondent society. W.A.No. 775 of 2009 2 So, she moved the Women's Commission, Trivandrum. The Commission has already issued notice to the respondents therein and the proceedings are going on. According to the appellant, the disciplinary enquiry against her should be kept in abeyance, till her petition is heard and disposed of by the Women's Commission. Claiming the said relief and also praying to quash Exts.P2 and P3, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri.K. Karthikeya Panicker, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that even assuming everything that is stated in Ext.P3 is true, no misconduct is proved. When the Women's Commission is enquiring into the appellant's petition, it is only just and proper that further proceedings in the disciplinary proceedings are kept in abeyance. 4. We heard Shri.K.S. Hariharaputhran, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ext.P3 is not sustainable, as it does not disclose any misconduct, cannot be accepted. Whether the misconduct alleged therein has been W.A.No. 775 of 2009 3 committed by her and even assuming that the omissions and commission attributed to her are proved, whether the same is misconduct etc. are matters for the Enquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority to consider. We are not inclined to consider those matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No rule or order has been brought to our notice, which states that when a petition filed by a delinquent is being considered by the Women's Commission, the disciplinary action against her cannot be proceeded with. In the absence of any legal right, this court will not be justified in giving any direction in that matter. 6. The Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. But it is made clear that the observations in this judgment or in the judgment of the learned Single Judge will not affect the contentions of the appellant against Ext.P3 and other actions taken against her. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) tm Judge W.A.No. 775 of 2009 4