IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4861 of 2010(G)
1. SADANANDAN D.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (BUSINESS),
For Petitioner :SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :16/02/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 4861 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a retiree from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises
Ltd. On 31.5.2009, he retired from its service on superannuation while
holding the post of Chief Manager. Prior to his retirement, he was issued
with Ext.P1 memo of charges. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply to
Ext.P1 before the third respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that
without following the established procedures and in violation of the
principles of natural justice, it was ordered to recover an amount of
Rs.2,32,665/- from the retiral benefits due to the petitioner as per Ext.P3
communication. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner has preferred
Ext.P5 appeal before the second respondent. However, no action has so far
been taken on Ext.P5 appeal. It was in the circumstances that this Writ
Petition has been filed.
2. It is evident from Ext.P5 appeal that the petitioner has raised
several contentions against Ext.P3 including the one to the effect that it
was issued without following the prescribed procedures and in violation of
W.P.(C) NO.4861 of 2010 2
the principles of natural justice. It is the settled position that any order
having civil consequences can be passed only after following the
prescribed procedures and the principles of natural justice. Since Ext.P5
appeal has been preferred by the petitioner and it is pending before the
second respondent, it is up to the appellate authority, who is the second
respondent, to consider all these aspects. In view of the contention that an
amount of Rs.2,32,665/- has been ordered to be recovered from the retiral
benefits due to the petitioner even without following the prescribed
procedures and even without notice to the petitioner, it is only appropriate
that such recovery shall be deferred till a decision is taken on Ext.P5. As
Ext.P5 has been filed as early as on 9.9.2009, there shall be a direction to
the second respondent to consider and pass orders thereon expeditiously, at
any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.4861 of 2010 3
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO. 4861/2010
JUDGMENT
16th February, 2010