IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 16417 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.V.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. VASUDEVAN, AGED 48, SALES ASSISTANT ERNAKULAM SHOWROOM, (SUSPENDED AND REINSTATED AT PPU,HPH CHIRAKKAL, KALLISSERY) OF THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED KANNUR. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, KANNUR. 2. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, Y.JAYAKUMAR, MANAGER(R & D), KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, A/W. W.P.(C).No. 17802/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos. 16417 & 17802 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T W.P.(C).No.16417/2010 is filed by an employee of the 1st respondent challenging the enquiry conducted into certain allegations of misconduct against the petitioner, on the ground that the enquiry itself is violative of the principles of natural justice, insofar as the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself. Petitioner's contention is that petitioner's request for permission to examine his witnesses has been rejected by the enquiry officer. W.P.(C).No.17802/2010 is filed by the very same workman challenging the orders of dismissal passed pursuant to the enquiry challenged in W.P.(C). No.16417/2010. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed, from which, I find that the fact that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to defend himself by examining his witnesses is not properly denied. That would amount to an admission that the enquiry itself is vitiated. 3. On a consideration of the materials before me, I am inclined to hold that the enquiry has not been validly conducted insofar as there is violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the above opinion of the Court, the counsel for the respondents seek an opportunity to conduct a de novo enquiry after complying with the w.p.c.16417/10 & cc 2 principles of natural justice. According to the respondents, such an opportunity would have been available to the respondents, in case the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute which is the proper remedy in such cases and such an opportunity cannot be denied to them even though the petitioner has challenged the enquiry proceedings in a writ petition. After considering the arguments of both sides, I am satisfied that the enquiry and the orders of punishment can be set aside and the respondents can be permitted to conduct a de novo enquiry after complying with the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to conduct a fresh enquiry complying with the principles of natural justice after affording the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge