IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35806 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.A.RAJEEV, MANAGER IN-CHARGE, (UNDER SUSPENSION) RETIRED, KERALA STATE COIR CORPORATION SHOWROOM, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.XI-879, PERUMAOOR, KONCHIRA P.O., VEMPAYAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 615. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE COIR CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO.191, FACTORY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SHRI ABRAHAM THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR IN-CHARGE, KERALA STATE CORI CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO.191, FACTORY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KERALA STATE COIR CORPORATION LTD., P.B.NO.191, FACTORY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.BALACHANDRAN KARTHA,SC,COIRCRFT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35806 of 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.10.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 31.10.07 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 2.11.07 IN W.P.(C).32374/07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.KSCC/BOARD/254 DATED 16.11.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 30.11.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).35806/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT While working as a Manger-in-charge of the showroom of the first respondent at Thiruvananthapuram, petitioner was suspended from service, as per Ext.P1 dated 26.10.2007. Ext.P1 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.32374/2007. Petitioner was then asked to avail of the alternate remedy. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the appellate authority to take a decision as expeditiously as possible at any rate before 15.11.2007, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was due to retire on 30.11.2007. The said time was later extended upto 28.11.2007. In the meanwhile, Board of Directors, the appellate authority passed Ext.R2(1) resolution on 24.11.2007 deciding to reinstate the petitioner in service inter alia taking note of his apology before the Board. Writ petition was filed at that point of time. According to the petitioner, in spite of the decision to reinstate him in service, he was actually not reinstated but was led to retire as if he continued on W.P.(C).35806/2007 2 suspension. It is therefore, the following reliefs have been sought for:- (i). Declare that the respondents 1 and 2 were legally bound to implement the decision of the third respondent dated 24.11.07 to reinstate the petitioner in service on or before 30.11.07. (ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner as deemed to be reinstated in service with effect from 26.11.07 till 30.11.07 on which dated he retired on superannuation and give him all consequential benefits. (iii). Declare that the non-implementation of the decision of the third respondent dated 24.11.2007 pursuant to Ext.P4 by respondents 1 and 2 is illegal and unconstitutional. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to them, though under Ext.R2 (1) resolution a decision was taken to reinstate the petitioner in service, actual reinstatement by way of implementation of the resolution had to await the W.P.(C).35806/2007 3 Government decision. It is further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 and which is referred to in Ext.R2(1) is yet to be completed. Further submission by the respondents is that the retirement benefits will be disbursed to the petitioner only after the completion of the disciplinary proceedings. Obviously, since the disciplinary proceedings commenced prior to retirement, disbursement of the retirement benefits may await completion of the proceedings but proceedings will have to be completed without delay. At the same time, it has to be noted that there is absolutely no justification for not giving effect to the decision taken under Ext.R2(1) to reinstate the petitioner in service. Both on humanitarian and equitable considerations and in law he is entitled to be treated as having been reinstated in service on the date of Ext.R2 (1). W.P.(C).35806/2007 4 In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i). Petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service on revocation of suspension effected under Ext.P1 with effect from 24.11.2007, the date of Ext.R2(1) resolution. (ii). First respondent shall complete the proceedings referred to in Ext.R2(1) within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (iii). Retirement benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed after completion of the aforementioned proceedings and subject to the decision to be taken by the first respondent. (iv). Salary due to the petitioner, pending payment as on the date of retirement, shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs