IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 5059 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- DR.SAJI EASSOW, MANAGER (PRODUCTION), MEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD., EDAYAR P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM-686 662, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. C.KRISHNAN, CHAIRMAN, MEAT PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD., EDAYAR P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM-686 662. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) ) SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL ) R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.5059/2008 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/06/07. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTE FILE ATTACHED TO THE DISPOSAL REGISTER KEPT BY THE RESPONDENT DURING MARCH TO NOVEMBER, 2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTE FILE ATTACHED to the DISPOSAL REGISTER KEPT BY THE RESPONDENT DURING JANUARY, 07. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER TABULATION KEPT BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/01/2008 SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 31/01/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5059 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Manager (Productions) under the Meat Products of India, 1st respondent. He is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of suspension issued by the Managing Director. But, the order of suspension is challenged essentially on three grounds. Firstly, the suspension order is seen to have been issued by the Managing Director, as dictated by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 30.1.2008 and the Board of Directors has no competence to issue an order of suspension. Secondly, the Board of Directors is an appellate authority over any action taken by the Managing Director in terms of the Staff Regulations applicable to the employees of Meat Products of India. Therefore, in issuing the order of suspension, the Managing Director has only acted only as per the order dictated by the Board of Directors. The appellate remedy available to the petitioner is rendered inefficacious. W.P.(C).NO.5059/08 :: 2 :: Thirdly, the order of suspension is the product of certain personal enmity entertained by the chairman. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 and a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.T.R.Ravi and senior counsel sri.K.R.B.Kaimal assisted by Unnikrishna Kaimal on behalf of the 1st respondent. 4. The first aspect to be considered is whether the order of suspension is without jurisdiction. Regulation No.66 of Staff Regulations enables suspension of an employee. Regulation No.66(1) reads as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations an employee may be placed under suspension without notice by the appointing authority or any authority to which the employee is subordinate or any other authority empowered in that behalf.” 5. Mr.Ravi is correct when he says that the power to suspend an employee will be confined only to the appointing authority or any authority to which the employee is subordinate or any authority empowered to W.P.(C).NO.5059/08 :: 3 :: and this does not include the Board of Directors, which is even the superior authority to the appointing authority. The argument would have been impeccable, had the order of suspension been issued by the Board of Directors as such. Respondents have produced, along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R1(a), which is the resolution of the Board of Directors in relation to item No.28 in the 167th meeting held on 30.1.2008. There is similarity in the wording of Ext.R1(a) and P5. But, I take note of the fact that the Board of Directors has only authorised the Managing Director to take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner. Ext.R1(a) per se on the face of it does not contemplate suspension. Nor can the petitioner be treated as having been suspended by Ext.R1(a). 6. In issuing Ext.P5, the Managing Director, no doubt, has taken note of Ext.R1(a). This is evident from para 2 of Ext.P5. The petitioner is placed under suspension by the Managing Director and it cannot be gainsaid that he has the power to do so in terms of Clause 66 of the Regulations. Ext.P5, therefore, will have W.P.(C).NO.5059/08 :: 4 :: to be sourced to the authority of the Managing Director and if that be so, it cannot be said that the Managing Director has merely acted as per the dictates of the Board of Directors. The Managing Director, the appointing authority, has taken note of Ext.R1(a) and he has independently exercised his powers to suspend the petitioner. He is competent to do so. In my view, this would be an answer to the first two contentions raised by the petitioner. 7. Mr.Ravi further contends that the order of suspension is the result of a mala fide exercise of power by the 2nd respondent. I have been taken through the relevant averments in para 6 of the writ petition. Mr.Ravi points out that there is no separate counter affidavit by the 2nd respondent. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would have been appropriate that the 2nd respondent eo nominee impleaded, had thought it appropriate to file a counter affidavit on his own especially when allegations are made in relation to him, in his personal capacity. Learned W.P.(C).NO.5059/08 :: 5 :: Senior Counsel for the respondents Mr.Kaimal points out that the allegations are vague and therefore, it did not merit a reply. May be it is so. But it called for a separate counter affidavit. 8. This itself, in my view, is not sufficient to interfere with the order of suspension. The order of suspension has been passed by the Managing Director and no mala fides are alleged against the Managing Director. Secondly, by its very nature, it is tentative and it is susceptible to a modification provided a motion is made in that behalf. 9. I also take note of the stand in the counter affidavit that the enquiry shall be completed at the earliest. 10. Further in my view, the petitioner has a right to file an appeal against Ext.P5 before the Board of Directors. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of holding that if the petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P5 before the Board of Directors within a period of one W.P.(C).NO.5059/08 :: 6 :: month from today, it shall be considered by the Board of Directors within six weeks thereafter. Needles to say, the Chairman of the Board of Directors shall not be present in the Board which considers the petitioner's appeal, if and when it is filed. The respondents shall also take appropriate steps to complete the enquiry and if there is undue delay on the part of the respondents in this regard, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for expeditious completion of the same. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//