IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1113 of 2010()
1. THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER MARKETING AND
... Petitioner
2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE TRAVANCORE
Vs
1. SUNNY CHERIAN, KUNNAKUTTU HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :11/10/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A.No. 1113 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
Aggrieved by judgment dated 22nd June, 2010 in W.P.(C)
No.15370 of 2010, respondents 2 and 3 therein preferred the
present writ appeal.
2. The first respondent herein filed the abovementioned
writ petition. He was employed with the first appellant herein and
he has been working as the Secretary of the first appellant society.
The third respondent Bank invited applications from eligible
candidates for filling up the posts of ‘Cashier-cum-Clerk’. The first
respondent admittedly became one of the successful candidates in
the selection procedure that followed by the abovementioned
advertisement.
3. By Ext.P2 letter dated 12.4.2010 the first respondent
W.A.No.1113 of 2010
– 2 –
was called upon by the third respondent to report for duty within 15
days of the receipt of the appointment letter. Thereafter the first
respondent applied to the appellants herein to relieve him from the
service in order to enable him to report to the third respondent.
Since the request of the first respondent was not favourably
considered for some time by the appellants, the first respondent
approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.15370 of 2010 which
was allowed by the judgment under appeal.
4. The appellants resisted the writ petition on the ground
that a disciplinary enquiry relating to certain allegations of
misconduct is pending against the first respondent and therefore they
are not in a position to relieve the first respondent because the
appellants believe (and rightly so) that they would lose the
disciplinary control over the first respondent the moment he is
relieved from the service as the contractual relationship of master
and servant between the appellants and the first respondent would
W.A.No.1113 of 2010
– 3 –
come to an end thereby disabling the appellants to have any
disciplinary control over the first respondent.
5. By the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this
Court opined in substance that the appellants are not able to
conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable period
and therefore there is no justification for the appellants to decline the
request made by the first respondent to relieve him from service.
6. When the matter was taken up on 8.10.2010, having
regard to the facts and circumstances, we thought it that if the first
respondent is willing to give an undertaking that he would have no
objection for the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings
initiated by the appellants herein notwithstanding the fact that the
appellants relieve him from service and also agrees not to question
the legality of the continuance of such disciplinary proceedings, the
present litigation could be terminated. We, therefore, called upon
the learned counsel for the first respondent to obtain instructions in
W.A.No.1113 of 2010
– 4 –
this regard. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for
the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is agreeable
for giving such an undertaking. The first respondent who is present
in the court also made a categoric statement before us that he would
have no objection in giving an undertaking as mentioned above.
7. In the circumstances, we record the abovementioned
undertaking of the first respondent and in view of such an
undertaking we dispose of the writ appeal directing the appellants to
relieve the first respondent herein forthwith, preferably within a
period of one week from the date of obtaining the undertaking in
writing. It goes without saying that the appellants while relieving
the first respondent should return all the certificates which were
secured from him at the time of appointment and also give
necessary experience certificate to enable the first respondent to seek
employment elsewhere. In view of the interim orders passed by
this Court during the pendency of the writ appeal, we also deem it
W.A.No.1113 of 2010
– 5 –
appropriate to direct the third respondent to appoint the first
respondent on production of necessary certificates if they are
otherwise in accordance with law.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge
vns