IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32219 of 2007(I)
1. V.T.JOSE,S/O. THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PARATHODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE PRESIDENT, PARATHODE
For Petitioner :SRI.A.C.DEVASIA
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :02/11/2007
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c).No.32219 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exts.P13, P16 and P17 and seeks to quash
the same. Petitioner seeks a direction not to revert the petitioner as
Salesman on the basis of Ext.P13. According to the petitioner, on an
allegation that there was delay in sending the demand draft, petitioner
was proceeded against and punishment was imposed. According to
the him, he has preferred statutory appeal. But in the meantime, a
penalty is being implemented. I do not think that there is anything in
this writ petition which warrants interference under Article 226.
Admittedly, petitioner has preferred an appeal and the appeal is
pending consideration before the Committee. If the appeal is decided
in favour of the petitioner, petitioner will become entitled to the fruits
of the decision. If it is adverse to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner
to work out his remedy as available in law. Therefore, I do not see any
reason warranting interference under Article 226.
The writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of
the petitioner to prosecute his remedies available to him in law.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sv.