IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32079 of 2009(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C. NIRUP KUMAR, ASST.GRADE-II (SHOP IN CHARGE),KERALA STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION, FL 1 SHOP NO.13018, ULIKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, SOUTH VAYALALAM, TELLICHERRY-670 102. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGE (M&M), CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER.P.J, SC,BEVERAGES CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32079 of 2009(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXTP1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION REQUESTING TO GRANT DEPUTATION POST AS ASSISTANT GRADE-II AT FIRST RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 11/09/2006. EXTP2: COPY OF THE REGISTERED REMINDER LETTER DATED 18/01/2007. EXTP3: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P2, DATED 20/01/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER, KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DATED 17/05/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 17/05/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED 24/05/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPLY IN ANSWER TO EXT.P4 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 04/06/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT REGARDING CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT GRADE-II, DATED 04/06/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 22/06/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 05/09/2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 19/10/2007. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE MEMO GIVEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 26/12/2008. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE ORDER SENT BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 26/12/2008. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MINISTER FOR EXCISE, STATE OF KERALA, DATED 02/01/2009. WP(C).No. 32079 of 2009(D) EXT.P15: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 05/01/2009. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P12 MEMO DATED 07/01/2009. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE ORDER DROPPING ALL FURTHER ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER, DATED 09/02/2009, BASED ON THE COMPLAINT OF AMRITH DISTILLERIES, DATED 09/02/2009. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT KEEPING PETITIONER UNDER SUSPENSION, DATED 07/09/2009. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER REQUESTING TO EXTENT THE DEPUTATION, DATED 03/10/2009. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION, DATED 13/10/2009. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P20 MEMO OF CHARGE DATED 27/10/2009. EXT.P22: COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 10/11/2009. EXT.P23: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14/11/2009 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO ISSUED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF REVERSION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P24: COPY OF THE REVERSION ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26/10/2009 ACTUALLY COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER ONLY ON 18/11/2009. EXT.P25: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 16/03/2010. EXT.P26: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P25 LETTER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).32079/2009 ....................... Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Highly Skilled Technician under the Keltron Crystals Limited, Kannur. By Ext.P11 order dated 19.10.2007, petitioner was posted on deputation to the 1st respondent Corporation. Accordingly, he was posted as Shop Assistant Grade-II at the retail outlet of the 1st respondent at Manathana in Kannur District. While so, Ext.P12 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner containing allegations of misconduct to which Ext.P16 explanation was submitted. However, those proceedings were subsequently dropped. 2. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred and posted at Ulikkal. While so, he was placed under suspension with effect from 7.9.2007, on the allegation that he collected excess amount from a decoy customer. Ext.P20 is the memo of charges that was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted Ext.P21 explanation. While so, the period of deputation expired and praying for a direction to W.P.(C).32079/09 2 the 1st respondent to extent the period of deputation, he filed this writ petition on 9.11.2009. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, he was relieved from the service of the Corporation and by Ext.P24 order dated 26.10.2009, he was reverted to Keltron. Accordingly, petitioner joined his parent Company where he is presently working. 4. In this writ petition, he complains of three grievances. One is that by Ext.P7 petitioner was informed by the 1st respondent that the minimum educational qualification for appointment as Shop Assistant Grade-II is Degree. It is the contention of the petitioner that several unqualified persons are retained by the Corporation on deputation. It is stated that therefore, either he should also be retained on deputation or all the unqualified persons should be reverted to their parent Departments. Second grievance is that the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner, by placing him under suspension with effect from 7.9.2009 and in respect of which Ext.P20 memo of charges was issued, are still remaining without any progress. Third grievance is that for the period W.P.(C).32079/09 3 during which the petitioner was kept out of employment on suspension, he has not been paid salary or any other allowances. 5. As far as the contention of the petitioner that several unqualified persons are working on deputation is concerned, none of the persons who are allegedly retained by the Corporation are before this Court. In such a situation this Court will not be justified in interfering with that contention of the petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner has any surviving grievance in this respect, it is open to the petitioner to move the corporation for that purpose. 6. There is substance in the grievance that there has not been any progress in the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. As already noticed, he was placed under suspension on 7.9.2009 and Ext.P20 memo of charges was issued on 13.10.2009. Once such proceedings have been initiated, it is for the employer of the petitioner, being the lending authority, to conclude the disciplinary action and according to the 1st respondent, relevant records have already been transmitted to his employer. Therefore, this complaint of the petitioner has to be urged before the W.P.(C).32079/09 4 employer and it is for that employer to take steps for redressal of his grievance. Since the employer is not party in this writ petition and it is for that employer to take steps for expeditious completion of the disciplinary action, I leave it open to the petitioner to move the employer for redressal of this grievance as well. 7. As far as the third grievance that salary and other subsistence allowance were not paid when the petitioner was kept out of service, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the corporation, suspension order itself provides for payment of subsistence allowance. 8. However, taking into account the complaint of the petitioner that the subsistence allowance has not been paid, for the period when the petitioner was kept under suspension till his reversion, it is directed that this grievance of the petitioner will be examined by the 2nd respondent and if the complaint of the petitioner appears to be correct, such payment shall be made within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).32079/09 5 9. As far as the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period of suspension is concerned, that claim is dependent upon the outcome of the disciplinary action pending against him. Therefore, it is clarified that once the disciplinary action against the petitioner is concluded, petitioner can move the authorities concerned for urging this claim. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs