IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16474 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- J.UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.JANARDHANAN, KABADDI COACH, KERLA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, TRIVANDRUM -1, RESIDING AT "PANCHAVADI" NO.TC 31/506(5) YMA ROAD, CHACKAI, TRIVANDRUM-24. BY ADV. MR.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY MR.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA MINISTRY OF YOUTH & SPORTS AFFAIRS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA, STATE SPORTS COUNCIL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 3. SHRI.T.P.DASAN, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BAU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16474 of 2010 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P19 memo of charges issued to the petitioner alleging misconducts. 2. Both according to the learned counsel for the petitioner and also according to the standing counsel for respondents 2 & 3, the petitioner is a Kabadi Coach engaged by the 2nd respondent on casual basis. Earlier when allegations were raised against him, an enquiry was conducted and action was initiated. However, Ext.P6 was issued by Government of Kerala to Government of India in connection with the proceedings considering the petitioner for Dronacharya Award, that the enquiry held against him is vitiated for several reasons. It was on account of that fresh proceedings are sought to be initiated by Ext.P19. 3. The petitioner challenges Ext.P19 mainly on the ground that it is vitiated by malafides. It is also contended that since he is only a casual employee, Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control WP(C) No.16474/2010 -2- and Appeal) Rules, 1960, relied on in Ext.P19 is inapplicable. 4. As far as the plea of malafides is concerned, this plea is raised against the 3rd respondent. Apart from the vague allegations contained in paragraphs 3 & 11 of the writ petition, there is nothing concrete to infer malafides. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept this contention. 5. As far as the inapplicability of the KCS (CCA) Rules is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner is a casual employee. Even if he is a casual employee, if his services are to be dispensed with on allegations of misconduct, it can be done only after conducting an enquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is in this context that Ext.P19 memo of charges has to be evaluated. Therefore, even if the Rule is inapplicable, there is nothing wrong in following the principles laid down in the Rules, which will provide the petitioner additional safeguards and no prejudice whatsoever is caused to him. Therefore, I am not impressed by this contention either. 6. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner is seriously prosecuting his claim for Dronacharya Award, necessarily, the out WP(C) No.16474/2010 -3- come of the enquiry will have an impact on his future. Therefore, it is necessary that the proceedings should be completed at an earlier date. 7. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 on this matter. Having regard to the submissions made by both sides, it is directed that the petitioner will file his reply to the memo of charges and within two months of receipt of the reply to the memo of charges, the 2nd respondent shall complete the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and final orders thereon will be passed. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg