IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1516 of 2010(L)
1. B.RADHAKRUSHNAN NAIR, FILIM CHECKER,
... Petitioner
2. S.KANNUSWAMY ASSISTANT THEATRE MANAGER
Vs
1. KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :04/02/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 1516 OF 2010
----------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is a film checker and the 2nd
petitioner is the Assistant Theater Manager at Kairali/Sree
Theater under the 1st respondent. The allegations levelled
against them are as hereunder:-On 8.1.2010 at about 17.18
hours immediately after the arrival of Train No.2624 at
Changannoor Railway Station platform one lady passenger
by name Smt. Rajimol, who was traveling along with the
petitioners in the said train in S-6 coach complained to the
duty RPF regarding the misbehavior of 1st petitioner.
Thereupon, he was detrained. When the train started the
leaving that station at 17.23 hrs the 2nd petitioner
unauthorisedly pulled the alarm chain to stop the train. He
was then, detrained for the offences of unauthorised chain
pulling and alleged drunkenness. Both or them were sent
for medical examination for drunkenness and consequently,
W.P.(C) NO. 1516 OF 2010 2
certificate of drunkenness were issued from Govt. Hospital,
Chengannur. They were placed under suspension pending
disciplinary action. The said order of suspension was passed
on 11.1.10. The petitioners submit that even after receiving
Ext.R2(a) no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated
against them, so far. Therefore, it is only appropriate that
their claim for reinstatement after revoking the suspension
be re-considered by the appropriate authority, it is
submitted.
2. Rule 30 of the Kerala State Film Development
Corporation Service Rules, deals with suspension. It does
not contain any appeal provision. At the same time, Rule
29 therein provides that in case of an alleged misconduct
which, prima facie, appears to be of a serious nature the
Managing Director or the Board of Directors as the case
may be, may place the employee concerned under
suspension pending enquiry. It would definitely suggest
that the Board of Directors got superior power to deal with
the subject of suspension. In the absence of any specific
W.P.(C) NO. 1516 OF 2010 3
provision in the Service Rules the petitioners who are
aggrieved by Ext.P1 order issued by the Managing Director
can only approach the Board of Directors to seek redressel
against Ext.P1. In these circumstances the petitioners are
given liberty to approach the Board of Directors of the 1st
respondent with a proper representation raising grievances
and contentions against Ext.P2. In case, such
representations are filed by the petitioners, the 2nd
respondent shall place them before the Board of Directors
of the 1st respondent for the purpose of considering the
grievances of the petitioners. On such consideration orders
thereon shall be passed within a period of one month.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.
mns