IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21378 of 2009(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.ARIFA BEEVI, STORE KEEPER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR. 2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC, KSHDC LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 21378 of 2009-N ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.T.R.Ravi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a Storekeeper in the regional store of the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. at Thiruvananthapuram, was dismissed from service by Ext.P6 memo dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation. Aggrieved thereby, in terms of the regulations governing the service conditions of employees of the Corporation, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 appeal in the year 2008. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to hear and dispose of Ext.P7 appeal within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. The petitioner was dismissed from the service by Ext.P6 memo dated 11.12.2008. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Ext.P7 appeal has been received and is pending. Since in Ext.P7 appeal, the petitioner has challenged an order imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service and as the service regulations provide for an appeal from Ext.P6 order, I am of the opinion W.P(C) No. 21378 of 2009-N 2 that the appellate authority should consider Ext.P7 appeal and pass orders thereon expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P7 appeal and pass orders thereon with notice to the petitioner and after affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This shall be with within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent. The appellate authority shall pass an order giving reasons in support of its conclusions and shall communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner expeditiously. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on Ext.P7 appeal, it will be open to him to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. It is clarified that the Managing Director who passed Ext.P6 order shall not be associated with the hearing and disposal of the appeal. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab