Dharaneedharan.P. Residing At … vs Taliparamba Co-Operative House on 11 October, 2006

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16791 of 2006(Y)


1. DHARANEEDHARAN.P. RESIDING AT NETAJI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. TALIPARAMBA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. TJE JOINT REGISTRAR(GENERAL),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

                For Respondent  :SRI.H.BADARUDDIN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

 Dated :11/10/2006

 O R D E R
                                      K. THANKAPPAN, J
                       ---------------------------------------------------------
                               W.P.(C). NO. 16791 OF 2006
                     --------------------------------------------------------------
                         Dated this the 11th day of October, 2006



                                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner filed this writ petition with the following prayers.

i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the

2nd respondent to grant the pension to the petitioner forthwith.

ii) To issue a direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to disburse provident

fund, gratuity, arrears of pay calculated on the basis of Government order dated

23.08.2005 with interest thereon within a time limit.

The petitioner was working with the first respondent – society. While

working so, Ext.P1 show cause notice was issued against the petitioner to show

cause why he should not be dismissed from service on the basis of the

disciplinary proceeding already initiated against him. As evident from Ext. R1(c)

dated 27.2.2006 the petitioner filed an arbitration case as ARC. No. 15/2006

before the Co-Operative Arbitration Court against Ext. P1 notice. The above

notice and the proceedings taken against the petitioner were challenged in ARC

No. 15/2006.

W.P.(C). NO. 16791 OF 2006 2

In the above arbitration case an IA was also filed for staying the further

proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 27.12.2006. Arbitration Court had

granted interim stay. In the meanwhile the first respondent-society after having

conducted the enquiry and on the decision taken by the said committee, had

issued Ext. R1(e) by which service of the petitioner has been terminated. In the

meanwhile the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2006. Now the petitioner

submits that since the proceedings initiated against him was stayed by the

Arbitration Court, the order issued by the first respondent, dismissing him from

service is not sustainable and the prayer in the writ petition is that he wants to

get the pension. Now a counter affidavit is also filed for and on behalf of the first

respondent and this court also heard the counsel for the second respondent –

Pension Board.

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – Pension

Board submits that as and when papers are received from the first respondent,

necessary orders will be passed as per clause 18(2) of the pension scheme and

whether the petitioner is entitled for pension or not will depend on the order to be

passed by the Arbitrator.

Now the question to be decided is that whether the show cause notice

issued by the first respondent can be challenged before the Arbitration Court and

W.P.(C). NO. 16791 OF 2006 3

the interim order passed as evident from Ext.P1 is sustainable or not. In the light

of the dismissal order passed by the first respondent as evidence from Ext. R1

(e), this court is of the view that the validity of the show cause notice alone

cannot be considered. It is left to the petitioner to challenge Ext. R1(e) before

the appropriate authority. In this context the counsel for the petitioner submits

tha t the petitioner was not served Ext. R1(e), even though the counsel for the

first respondent submits that it was already sent to him within 3 days of passing

of the order. However, it is appropriate for the first respondent to give a copy of

Ext. R1(e) to the petitioner within 2 weeks from today.

Come to the merit of the contention of this case, this court is of the view

that since the petitioner is dismissed from service by Ext. R1(e), that order has to

be challenged before the appropriate authority. In the above circumstances, this

writ petition is closed without considering the contention raised. With regard to

the stand taken by the second respondent – Board can be reconsidered on

getting appropriate orders from the authority deals with the dismissal order

passed by the first respondent.

K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.

RV