IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 34665 of 2004(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.BABU, RECEPTIONIST, KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENTF CORPORATION, YATRI NIVAS, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, YATRI NIVAS, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, YATRI NIVAS, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR, SC, K.T.D.C. FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.9.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 34665/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1. COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGTES DTD.11.3.2002. P2. COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT. P3. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.16.12.2002. P4. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.23.12.2002. P5. COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD.22.1.2003. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.28.2.2003 BY R2. P7. COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.19.3.2003 BEFORE R1. P8. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). No. 34114/2003 OF THIS COURT. P9. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.22.6.2004 BY R2. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 34665 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the basis of Ext.P1 memo of charges and statement of allegations. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted Ext.P2 report, in which, out of the 8 charges, the petitioner was found guilty of six charges. Based on the same, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner and, ultimately, after hearing the petitioner, by Ext.P6 order, the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed on the petitioner the punishment of termination from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors and the Board adopted a resolution to re-appoint the petitioner afresh without the benefits of past service with certain other conditions, which decision was communicated by the Managing Director to the petitioner, by Ext.P9 proceedings. The petitioner joined duty pursuant thereto and subsequently, the petitioner retired from service also. The petitioner is now challenging Exts.P1, P2, P4, P6 and P9 seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exts.P1, P2, P4, P6 and P9 and quashing the same. w.p.c.34665/04 2 ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that Ext.P9 is void and nonest. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to treat the period during which the petitioner was suspended till the date of his re- appointment vide Ext.P9 order as duty for all purposes and grant all consequential benefits.” 2. The contentions raised in the writ petition and before me are that the memo of charges are vague and there was no evidence in the enquiry to find the petitioner guilty of the misconducts alleged. 3. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit, but they seek to sustain the impugned orders on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner himself. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Perhaps the petitioner may be correct in saying that some of the charges are vague, which are sverable. But, on a reading of the statement of allegations accompanying the memo of charges and the findings in respect thereof by the enquiry officer, I do not think that the petitioner can now challenge the punishment imposed on him. The statement of allegations reads thus: “You, Shri.K.Babu, while working as Receptionist in the SRBP, Varkala Unit have committed several misconducts warranting major punishment. The Unit Manager has reported your wilful insubordination and disobedience. You were also in the habit of quarrelilng with your colleagues. You always refused to work as a Receptionisteven though your actual job is that of a Receptionist. You have involved with an illegal relationship with a lady whom you have engaged as a daily waged worker while you were the Unit-in-charge at SRBP, Attingal. When you discontinued the courtship with the lady, she was annoyed and visited the Varkala Unit several times and created scenes. On one occasion the above lady threatened that she would self-immolate in front of the Varkala Unit, if you fail to come out of your hiding place in w.p.c.34665/04 3 the Unit. The above scene created by the lady on that day had attracted unnecessary crowding in front of the Unit. This had also affected the reputation of the Unit badly. After the above incident, relatives of this lady used to visit the Varkala Unit regularly in search of you and created unnecessary scenes and thereby caused irreparable damage to the goodwill of the Varkala Unit. The employees working the Unit had also given an amount of your misdeeds and misconducts in their representation dated 5.11.2001 and 17.1.2001. The misconducts committed by you is punishment with dismissal. This Memo of Charges is therefore given to you to give you an opportunity to offer your explanation.” On the same, the enquiry officer has entered a finding as follows; “3.11. The sixth charge is that the accused committed an act subversive of discipline and good behaviour in the premises of the unit. Apart from insubordination and disobedience, and refusal to work as receptionist, the statement of allegations gives an account of the visits of a lady from outside with whom he is alleged to have illegal relationship which caused a lot of scenes in the premises of the unit in the presence of customers and attracting unnecessary crowds in front of the unit affecting the reputation of the unit badly and further visits of some relatives of the lady to the unit in search of the accused creating scenes and causing irreparable damage to the goodwill of the unit. As these incidents have been substantially proved by the written complaints of staff (management witnesses), who have stated that the accused avoided her desperately and told the staff to tell the lady that he as on leave etc. (when he was in the unit itself). I have no hesitation to hold that the charge has been proved beyond doubt.” It is settled law that the findings in a domestic enquiry can be successfully challenged only on the ground of perversity. On a reading of the findings as above, I do not find any perversity in those findings. The staff who were examined as witnesses in the enquiry have given evidence to prove that the lady in question used to come regularly to the office where the petitioner was working and make scenes attracting the attention of outsiders, pursuant to which, crowds used to gather in front of the office. That situation, an establishment catering w.p.c.34665/04 4 to tourists can ill-afford. That affects the very reputation of the establishment. Therefore, that finding justifies very severe punishment on the petitioner. In this case, although originally, by Ext.P6 order, the disciplinary authority had imposed on the petitioner the punishment of termination from service, the Board of Directors, after confirming the findings in the enquiry as well as that of the Managing Director, took a lenient view in re-appointing the petitioner as a fresh recruit without the benefits of past service. I do not find anything wrong with the action of the respondents in the same. On the other hand, I am of opinion that if they have erred, they have erred in favour of the petitioner, by being undeservingly lenient to him. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge