IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 633 of 2010() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8009/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- T.K.KUNJUMOHAMMED, S/O.KUNJUMOIDEENKUTTY AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT BUSHRA MANZIL, THANKICKAL HOUSE, THOTTAKATTUKARA.P.O. ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- DR. M.BALAGOPAL, S/O. NARAYANA MENON AGED 55 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., NO.679, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED SRI.GEORGE MATHEW THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.633 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. Judgment 1.The petitioner, while an employee of the Kerala State Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation Ltd., faced disciplinary proceedings. Following an earlier judgment, one A.K.Bhanu was appointed as the enquiry officer. He was later promoted and as a consequence, he relinquished the office of the enquiry officer. Thereafter, one Sankarankutty was appointed. He died in a motor accident. When WP(C).8009/2009 came up for consideration, it was found that another enquiry officer was yet to be appointed. This Court, therefore, directed the Federation to obtain orders from the RCS in the light of the earlier judgment which was Ext.P5 in WP(C).8009/2009 and to have the enquiry proceedings concluded within four months. COC.633/10 -: 2 :- 2.This contempt of court case is filed against the Managing Director of the Federation on the ground that the said direction has not been complied with, within the time limit. The petitioner retired from the service on 31.5.2010. The counter affidavit of the respondent shows that the RCS had appointed an Assistant Registrar as the enquiry officer as per Annexure-R1(c) proceedings on 7.5.2010 and the enquiry was completed on 31.5.2010, the date on which the petitioner superannuated. It is also stated by the respondent that enquiry report was submitted thereafter. Whatever be the legality or correctness of the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer and the consequential proceedings, I do not find that the respondent is guilty of any wilful neglect of the directions contained in the judgment because he could have only moved the necessary steps to have the enquiry officer appointed by the RCS. That was done. The RCS issued Annexure R1(c) order. COC.633/10 -: 3 :- Consequently, the enquiry is also completed. Therefore, there is no scope for any action under the Contempt of Courts Act. This contempt of court case is hence closed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right, if any, to seek relief against the disciplinary proceedings. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2808