IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35894 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 39, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KALAPPURAYIL, PUTHIAVILA, PATTOLI MARKET P.O., (SHOP ASST. OF FLI THRIKKUNNAPUZHA) BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35894 OF 2009 (F) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P6, an order issued by the 4th respondent directing the petitioner to be relieved. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Junior Health Inspector Grade II in the Health Service Department. He was deputed to the 4th respondent and was appointed as a Shop Assistant as is seen from Ext.P2. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred by Ext.P3 order and was posted to FLI Shop at Thrikunnapuzha. 3. While working at Thrikunnapuzha, it would appear that the head office audit team inspected the FLI shop on 14/11/2009. It is stated that a report was made by the audit team that the petitioner was found lying on the floor of the shop after consuming liquor. It is stated that the petitioner also admitted his fault to the audit team. Acting upon the report and taking the view that consuming liquor while on duty is a grave misconduct and unbecoming of a Government servant, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P6 order reverting the petitioner to the parent WPC 35894/09 :2 : department. Accordingly, the Warehouse Manager was directed to relieve the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenge. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order was issued without notice to him. It is also stated that the 4th respondent is incompetent to prematurely terminate the deputation period without obtaining sanction of the Government. Lastly, it is contended that the contents of Ext.P6 will expose the petitioner to proceedings for misconduct which should not have been done without notice to him. 5. As far as the first plea is concerned, the effect of Ext.P6 at best is that there is a premature termination of the deputation and repatriation to the parent department. This cannot be said as one involving any punishment or civil consequences. Therefore, no substantive right of the petitioner can be said to be affected by Ext.P6 order requiring compliance with the principles of natural justice or issuing notice to him. Therefore, the plea of want of notice is of no substance. 6. As far as the competence of the 4th respondent to issue Ext.P6 is concerned, the contention raised is that before reverting the petitioner to the parent department, Government sanction WPC 35894/09 :3 : ought to have been obtained. No rule imposing such requirement was shown to me. Reference was made to Rule 145, but however, I am not able to read any such requirement in the rule. Admittedly, it was in the establishment of the 4th respondent that the petitioner was working on deputation. A report was received prima facie disclosing certain misconducts and it was on that basis Ext.P6 has been issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation. In my view, the 4th respondent is well within its rights to say that they do not need a person in their service, if they are of the view that he is undeserving. The borrowing authority is always entitled to terminate the deputation, and if so, Managing Director of the establishment is the most competent person. 7. The last contention is regarding the possibility of the petitioner being exposed to proceedings of misconduct. If a misconduct has been committed, it is upto the disciplinary authority to initiate action. This necessarily should be in compliance with the rules in that behalf requiring issuance of notice, memo of charges, statement of allegations and such other proceedings as may be applicable. Unless the disciplinary WPC 35894/09 :4 : authority is satisfied on the materials available that a misconduct has been committed, the petitioner cannot be exposed to any punishment in view of Ext.P6. Therefore, the submission that Ext.P6 itself will expose the petitioner to punishment cannot be accepted. 8. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. 9. Now that the deputation has been terminated as above, it is upto the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for suitable posting. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp