IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15388 of 2009(P)
1. T.Y.SHAMSU, AGED 51, S/O.YOUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TATAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD.NO.
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 15388 OF 2009 (P)
=====================
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner submits that he is an Attender working under the
1st respondent society. Earlier he was dismissed from the services
and following the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in ID
No.59/02, he was reinstated in service as per Ext.P1 order.
Subsequently, Ext.P2 order was issued placing the petitioner
under suspension alleging certain misconducts. Memo of charges
were issued and enquiry was conducted. Report has been
submitted finding the petitioner guilty and by Ext.P7, petitioner
was called upon to make his representations against the findings
of the enquiry officer.
2. The petitioner complained against the manner in which
enquiry was conducted and therefore sought reopening of the
enquiry by filing Ext.P8.
3. Petitioner has a complaint that the 1st respondent has
not paid his subsistence allowance since 22/4/2008 when he was
placed under suspension. According to him, his representations in
this behalf did not yield any result and therefore he has filed
WPC 15388/09
:2 :
Exts.P5 and P6 before the 2nd respondent complaining of non
payment of the subsistence allowance. It is stated that this also
has not been responded. It is at this stage the writ petition is filed
mainly praying that the enquiry should be reopened and
subsistence allowance should be paid.
4. In my view, the prayer for reopening of the enquiry
now made is misconceived. If the enquiry is invalid for any
reason, it is for the petitioner to point out the alleged irregularities
in his representation, which he has been called upon to submit in
response to Ext.P7.
5. It is the settled position of law that the enquiry officer
is only a delegate of the disciplinary authority and that the
disciplinary authority is not bound by the findings of the enquiry
officer. Therefore, if there is any invalidating factor in the conduct
of the enquiry, it is always open to the petitioner to take
advantage of the same before the disciplinary authority, in which
event, it is to the disciplinary authority to consider that issue as
well. Therefore, at this stage, nothing has been brought out for
interference in this writ petition.
6. Be that as it may,in so far as the case of the petitioner
WPC 15388/09
:3 :
regarding the non payment of subsistence allowance is
concerned, having regard to the fact that this issue has been
raised before the 2nd respondent by filing Exts.P5 and P6, it is
directed that the 2nd respondent shall consider those
representations and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this
judgment.
7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along
with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for
compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp