IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 14557 of 1999(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.UNNI, U.S.NIVAS, VATTAPARAMBU, CHALIYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SMT.K.N.RAJANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1) STEEL INDUSTRIAL KERALA LTD; P.B.NO.1304, BEYPORE, CALICUT-15, REP: BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2) SENIOR MANAGER, STEEL INDUSTRIAL KERALA LTD; P.B.NO.1304, BEYPORE, CALICUT – 15. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE,SC,STEEL INDUSTRIES K.LT SRI.T.V.GEORGE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SB:01:58:92/1125 DATED 9.7.92 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SB:01:58:95/419 DTD.20.6.95 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2(a): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.P&A:CO:II(30)/550 DTD.9.9.94 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SB:01:58:97/1064 DTD.1.10.97 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.20.10.97 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.20-12-97 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SB:01:58:98/110 DTD.20.1.98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SB:01:58:98/1337 DTD.17.12.98 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SB:01:58/99/201 DTD.27.2.99 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOINER. P9: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD.30.3.99 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P10: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.HRD:CO:SBI(95)/1246 DTD.13.4.99 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONENTS EXHIBITS:- R1(a): COPY OF CIRCULAR DTD.9.9.94 R1(b): COPY OF EXPLANATION DTD.26.1.98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. R1(c): COPY OF LETTER DTD.10.3.98 COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIOINER. -: 2 :- R1(d): COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. R1(e): COPY OF LETTER DTD.5.1.99 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE ENQUIRY OFFICER. R1(f): COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.17.12.98. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= OP.No.14557 of 1999-G. ========================= Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge is against the disciplinary proceedings resulting in Ext.P8 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. He challenged the same in appeal before the appellate authority which was disposed of by Ext.P10. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case most injustice was done to the petitioner since he was not given proper opportunity to participate in the enquiry as he was working out side India. It was further submitted that disciplinary authority while passing Ext.P8 did not consider the contentions on merits and the learned counsel based on the dictum laid down in Managing Director, ECIL v. B.Karunakar (1993(4) SCC 727) submits that when the disciplinary authority is different from the enquiry authority the entire aspects should have been considered independently by it. OP.No.14557 of 1999-G. 2 3. The learned counsel also pointed out that in Ext.P10 there is no consideration of the points raised by the petitioner in his appeal memorandum namely, Ext.P9. The order passed in the appeal is a short one which is extracted below: “We acknowledge receipt of your above referred letter. The appellate authority, as per the standing orders, had gone through the said letter in detail and after considering the facts of the issue arrived at a conclusion that there was no need to reconsider the punishment imposed on you vide letter No.SB:01:58:99/201 dated 27.2.1999. In view of the above, I am directed to inform you that, the termination order passed against you with effect from 27.1.1999 is confirmed and you may contact the accounts department of Ship Breaking Unit, Beypore for settling your accounts.” The petitioner has raised various grounds in Ext.P9 and even though in Ext.P10 it is stated that the matter had been gone through in detail no specific reasons have been pointed out in support of the decision to reject the appeal. Since the proceedings have resulted in dismissal from service, it is clear that it will cause substantial prejudice to the petitioner. Judged by the well accepted principles of law governing the matter, I am satisfied that OP.No.14557 of 1999-G. 3 in Ext.P10 no proper reasons have been pointed out for rejecting the appeal. It is not a reasoned order at all. Therefore, Ext.P10 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P9 appeal within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy this judgment. The petitioner is hereby allowed to submit written representation if any in support of the appeal also. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-