{"id":198322,"date":"2008-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008"},"modified":"2014-10-12T11:48:05","modified_gmt":"2014-10-12T06:18:05","slug":"k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial … on 21 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial … on 21 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 34691 of 2004(E)\n\n\n1. K.POCKER, S\/O.KUNHIKUTTY ALI HAJI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,\n\n3. M.K.KARTHIKEYAN,\n\n4. SRI.P.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\n\n Dated :21\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        V.GIRI, J.\n         -------------------------\n             W.P.(C).No.34691 of 2007\n         -------------------------\n         Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008.\n\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Petitioner challenges Ext.P34 order passed<\/p>\n
by the 2nd respondent Managing Director of the<\/p>\n
Kerala  State  Financial      Enterprises,      imposing a<\/p>\n
punishment on him, on conclusion of disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings initiated against the petitioner for a<\/p>\n
variety of charges.     Ext.P34 was challenged by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in appeal in terms of the Standing<\/p>\n
Orders and the same was also dismissed as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P41 order.     By Ext.P41 order, the Board of<\/p>\n
Directors affirmed Ext.P34 order.        Ext.P41 is also,<\/p>\n
therefore, challenged in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
       2.   As   evidenced      by   Ext.P2,     petitioner<\/p>\n
(Senior Manager) was eligible for promotion to the<\/p>\n
higher post of Regional Manager. By Ext.P3 memo<\/p>\n
dated  4.3.1999,    petitioner      was   suspended    from<\/p>\n
service.  Ext.P4 memo of charges was issued to the<\/p>\n
petitioner.  By    Ext.P5     letter     dated    18.5.1999<\/p>\n
petitioner sought for copies of various documents<\/p>\n
specifically referred to therein.           Petitioner was<\/p>\n
told vide Ext.P6 that directions have been issued<\/p>\n
to the Kalpetta Branch to provide him copies of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nrelevant documents.  Ext.P7 request was, therefore,<\/p>\n
made to the Branch Manager at Kalpetta reiterating<\/p>\n
the requests made in Ext.P5. This was met with<\/p>\n
Ext.P8 stating that certain documents were readily<\/p>\n
available and those which are available will be<\/p>\n
permitted  to  be   perused.     It  seems that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner felt that he would not be in a position<\/p>\n
to give a reply to the memo of charges and submit a<\/p>\n
written statement of defence, unless he is supplied<\/p>\n
with  the  documents.  He,     therefore, sought  for<\/p>\n
extension of time to submit a written statement.<\/p>\n
Petitioner makes reference to the repeated requests<\/p>\n
made by him in this regard and also refers to<\/p>\n
Ext.P14 dated 9.7.1999 whereby he was informed that<\/p>\n
many of the documents, copies of which he had<\/p>\n
sought for, are not relevant in this context.<\/p>\n
       3. An Enquiry Officer was appointed.       The<\/p>\n
enquiry was proceeded with.     Petitioner reiterated<\/p>\n
his request for copies of the documents before the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n
       4. The management got Exts.M1 to M28 marked<\/p>\n
at the time of enquiry.  Petitioner has a case that<\/p>\n
even  the  list  of  documents    relied  on  by  the<\/p>\n
management were not given to him.     He again made a<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nrequest, as evidenced by Ext.P22, that at least<\/p>\n
copies of the documents, which are marked by the<\/p>\n
management,  should  be  given   to  him.     In the<\/p>\n
meanwhile,  petitioner  aspired   for   promotion as<\/p>\n
Regional Manager on the strength of his seniority<\/p>\n
as reflected in Ext.P2 and the same had reached<\/p>\n
this  court,  as  evidenced    by  Exts.P24  and P25<\/p>\n
judgments.  The petitioner’s claim, in this regard,<\/p>\n
was directed to be considered on completion of the<\/p>\n
enquiry.  As could be seen from Ext.P26, petitioner<\/p>\n
persisted  with  the  claim    for  receipt  of   the<\/p>\n
documents.    On  completion    of  the  enquiry, he<\/p>\n
submitted a detailed argument note with reference<\/p>\n
to each charge and he repeated his complaint that<\/p>\n
there has been violation of the principles of<\/p>\n
natural justice, inter alia, on account of the fact<\/p>\n
that he was not only not supplied the documents<\/p>\n
which he had sought for in the first instance to<\/p>\n
substantiate his defence, but was also not supplied<\/p>\n
with the documents sought to be marked by the<\/p>\n
management in advance.   Ext.P28 Enquiry Report was<\/p>\n
drawn up on 18.4.2001 and on receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n
the   same,   petitioner     submitted   a   detailed<\/p>\n
representation  Ext.P29    raising   his   objections<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nregarding the findings contained in the Enquiry<\/p>\n
Report.  He had raised a contention on each one of<\/p>\n
the  findings  contained   in    the  Enquiry Report.<\/p>\n
Ext.P30  show  cause  notice     was  issued  to  the<\/p>\n
petitioner proposing a punishment of reversion.<\/p>\n
       5. Pursuant to a direction issued by this<\/p>\n
court in O.P.No.24543\/04, petitioner was afforded<\/p>\n
an opportunity for submitting an explanation to<\/p>\n
Ext.P30.  This was done as per Ext.P31.      Personal<\/p>\n
hearing was afforded on 16.11.2001.<\/p>\n
       6. Final orders on the disciplinary action<\/p>\n
was not passed for a long time and petitioner was<\/p>\n
due to retire on 28.2.2003.       He contends that on<\/p>\n
21.2.2003 he was served with Ext.P34 which is a<\/p>\n
final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n
He was let off with a “strong warning”.     An appeal<\/p>\n
filed  by  the  petitioner     before  the  Board  of<\/p>\n
Directors as per the Standing Orders [Ext.P36] was<\/p>\n
rejected  as  per  Ext.P41     and  as stated  above,<\/p>\n
petitioner challenges Exts.P34 and P41.<\/p>\n
       7. A detailed counter affidavit has been<\/p>\n
filed by the respondents supporting the orders<\/p>\n
impugned and a reply affidavit has been filed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.   I   heard  learned     counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
petitioner Mr.P.B.Krishnan, and learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the respondents Mr.Anand.\n<\/p>\n
       9. Mr.Krishnan, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner contends that the enquiry proceedings<\/p>\n
against the petitioner was clearly vitiated by<\/p>\n
violation of principles of natural justice.       He<\/p>\n
contends that immediately on receipt of the memo of<\/p>\n
charges  Ext.P1,  petitioner    made  a  request for<\/p>\n
copies of various documents as per Ext.P5.    He was<\/p>\n
assured that instructions have been given to the<\/p>\n
Kalpetta Branch to supply him with the copies of<\/p>\n
the relevant documents.    He reiterated his request<\/p>\n
in Ext.P7 and thereafter on several occasions.    He<\/p>\n
made a request before the Enquiry Officer, as is<\/p>\n
evidenced by Ext.P14.   He also made a request to<\/p>\n
the  Enquiry  Officer  to     summon the   documents.<\/p>\n
Petitioner  was   disabled     from  submitting  his<\/p>\n
statement    of    defence,      because    of   the<\/p>\n
omission\/failure on the part of the management to<\/p>\n
supply him those documents.\n<\/p>\n
       10. The management had produced certain<\/p>\n
documents from their side at the time of enquiry.<\/p>\n
Copies  of  the  same  were    not  supplied  to the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                       :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
\npetitioner before they were produced before the<\/p>\n
Enquiry  Officer.  In  fact,   the Enquiry  Officer<\/p>\n
should have ensured that the petitioner gets the<\/p>\n
copies of the documents and is then given some time<\/p>\n
to peruse the same and if necessary, call for<\/p>\n
details which may throw light on the aspects that<\/p>\n
are otherwise contended to be relevant by the<\/p>\n
management  with  reference   to  those  documents.<\/p>\n
After all, as many as 18 charges were originally<\/p>\n
formulated and each of them should be considered<\/p>\n
only with reference to the documents in the custody<\/p>\n
of the management.     Reference was made to the<\/p>\n
discharge of duties by the petitioner when he was<\/p>\n
in Kalpetta Branch.  That the management itself was<\/p>\n
not very certain about the correctness of the<\/p>\n
charges is evident from the fact that though as<\/p>\n
many as 18 charges were originally laid against the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the management had given up charges<\/p>\n
Nos.1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 18.    Charges 3 and 4<\/p>\n
were partly found.  Charges Nos.5, 6, 9, 10, 13 and<\/p>\n
17 were found fully.   The petitioner had, on his<\/p>\n
own, let in evidence.     Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner submits that there is a genuine attempt<\/p>\n
on the part of the employee to prove in a pro-<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nactive manner that the charges levelled against him<\/p>\n
were baseless.   He had examined Dws.1 to 11.     He<\/p>\n
had produced documents Exts.D1 to D28.<\/p>\n
       11.   Mr.Krishnan   contends  that   there is<\/p>\n
absolutely no reference whatsoever, worth the name<\/p>\n
to the employee’s evidence by the Enquiry Officer.<\/p>\n
He submits that a reference to the Enquiry Report<\/p>\n
will show that the Enquiry Officer condescended to<\/p>\n
refer to the employee’s evidence at two portions of<\/p>\n
the Enquiry Report, first at page 106 dealing with<\/p>\n
Issue No.3 and secondly at para 14 dealing with<\/p>\n
Issue No.9.  He submits that there is no reference<\/p>\n
to  the  plethora  of  documents    produced  by  the<\/p>\n
delinquent employee or the testimony of the 11<\/p>\n
witnesses examined on behalf of the employee in the<\/p>\n
whole of the report.\n<\/p>\n
       12. On receipt of the report, a detailed<\/p>\n
petition was submitted by the employee before the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority pinpointing every defect in<\/p>\n
the Enquiry Report as such.    Thus, the employee did<\/p>\n
everything to defend himself in the Enquiry.<\/p>\n
       13. It is contended that a personal hearing<\/p>\n
was conducted by the Managing Director in November,<\/p>\n
2001 [16.11.2001] and ultimately it was 14 months’<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthereafter that the final order was passed on<\/p>\n
19.2.2003, i.e., on the eve of his retirement on<\/p>\n
28.2.2003.   Therefore, the personal hearing was<\/p>\n
nothing but a formality and there is lack of<\/p>\n
application  of  the   mind    by  the  disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority. This is evident by the cryptic manner in<\/p>\n
which Ext.P34 has been passed.    Though a detailed<\/p>\n
memorandum of appeal was submitted traversing each<\/p>\n
one of the findings in the Enquiry Report, the same<\/p>\n
was  also  met  with  a    cryptic  appellate  order<\/p>\n
Ext.P41.   He submits that ultimately the only<\/p>\n
purpose achieved by the management, in initiating<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and<\/p>\n
terminating him on the eve of his retirement was to<\/p>\n
deny him the benefit of promotion to the post of<\/p>\n
Regional Manager and in said process enable 4 of<\/p>\n
his juniors to get promotion.   Since the petitioner<\/p>\n
retired on 28.2.2003, even if this court accepts<\/p>\n
his  contention,  it  could    only result  in   the<\/p>\n
management being required to give the petitioner<\/p>\n
the benefit of a promotion from the date on which<\/p>\n
his immediate juniors were promoted and it is<\/p>\n
prayed   that   consequential    benefits   may  be<\/p>\n
reflected, at least, in his retirement benefits.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 9 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       14. Learned counsel for the respondents, on<\/p>\n
the other hand, submits that strict rules are<\/p>\n
obviously  not  applicable      to  the  disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings.  There seems to have been laches on<\/p>\n
the  part  of   the  petitioner     in  dragging  the<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings.      None of the documents<\/p>\n
sought for by him was strictly relevant and what<\/p>\n
was relevant was supplied to him.     In the ultimate<\/p>\n
analysis,  the  petitioner     was  let  off  with  a<\/p>\n
warning, whereas a more severe punishment could<\/p>\n
have  been   awarded.  Learned     counsel  for   the<\/p>\n
respondents submitted that there is no reason for<\/p>\n
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
       15. Having heard counsel on both sides and<\/p>\n
having perused the Enquiry Report and the other<\/p>\n
documents  placed  on   record     and  the  detailed<\/p>\n
explanation offered by the petitioner, I am of the<\/p>\n
view that the petitioner is well founded in his<\/p>\n
contention that there has been violation of the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice in the conduct of the<\/p>\n
enquiry, which, to an extent was carried forth up<\/p>\n
to the final stage of the disciplinary proceedings<\/p>\n
resulting  in  the   final     order  passed by   the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                       :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       16. As was noted above, the petitioner made<\/p>\n
a request, at the earliest stage of disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings, for supply of copies of the documents.<\/p>\n
If the charges levelled against him Ext.P4 are<\/p>\n
perused, it can be seen that the documents sought<\/p>\n
for by him cannot be considered as unnecessary or<\/p>\n
otherwise totally irrelevant,    nor could it be<\/p>\n
contended that the documents are otherwise not<\/p>\n
available.  The management would obviously be the<\/p>\n
custodian of the documents and unless there is a<\/p>\n
weighty reason for not permitting or disclosing the<\/p>\n
same (I do not think it is possible for the<\/p>\n
management to take up a contention in that behalf<\/p>\n
in relation to the document sought for by the<\/p>\n
petitioner), then the principles of natural justice<\/p>\n
dictated that the copies of the documents may be<\/p>\n
made available to the employee. Of course, if some<\/p>\n
documents like voluminous registers or other books<\/p>\n
maintained by the management in the usual course of<\/p>\n
business  are  sought, then    it is open  to   the<\/p>\n
petitioner to note down the details, photo copies<\/p>\n
taken and then permitted to be marked.      If the<\/p>\n
logistics prevented photo copies being taken and<\/p>\n
supplied in the case of all the documents, then a<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 11 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nsuitable reply should have been given in that<\/p>\n
regard to the petitioner. Even in such cases, where<\/p>\n
the petitioner seeks production of some of those<\/p>\n
documents before the Enquiry Officer, they should<\/p>\n
have been produced.   If the management was unable<\/p>\n
to  do  so,  then  explanation    should  have been<\/p>\n
offered.\n<\/p>\n
       17. The request made before the Enquiry<\/p>\n
Officer for copies of the documents produced by the<\/p>\n
management   were   not     seriously   heeded  to.<\/p>\n
Apparently,  they  were  supplied   only  after the<\/p>\n
management witnesses were examined.      One should<\/p>\n
remember that the series of charges relatable to<\/p>\n
functions and duties discharged by the petitioner<\/p>\n
over several number of years as a Branch Manager at<\/p>\n
Kalpetta essentially formed the subject matter of<\/p>\n
enquiry and it would not be reasonable to presume<\/p>\n
that an officer would be able to give a suitable<\/p>\n
and fitting reply against the charges levelled,<\/p>\n
unless he is supplied with the copies of the<\/p>\n
documents sought for by him and is then afforded a<\/p>\n
reasonable time to go through the same and give an<\/p>\n
explanation.   Such an opportunity seems to have<\/p>\n
been denied to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                       :: 12 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       18. Learned counsel for the respondents is<\/p>\n
correct in saying that strict rules would not be<\/p>\n
imported to disciplinary proceedings.      Rules of<\/p>\n
evidence which are otherwise afforded in courts,<\/p>\n
say, that objections regarding document should be<\/p>\n
heard before the same is permitted to be admitted<\/p>\n
in evidence and that mere admission of a document<\/p>\n
will not amount to proof of its contents is also<\/p>\n
not  a  principle,  which    is  not  strictly made<\/p>\n
applicable to disciplinary proceedings.   But there<\/p>\n
is one rule which is applied without any dilution<\/p>\n
in all disciplinary proceedings.     The delinquent<\/p>\n
must be given a chance to defend himself properly<\/p>\n
and if he requests for the documents, which are in<\/p>\n
the custody to the employer, it must be supplied to<\/p>\n
him, unless there are adequate reasons for refusing<\/p>\n
this facility.   It is not the management’s case<\/p>\n
that any one or all the documents sought for by the<\/p>\n
petitioner could not have been disclosed before the<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer.\n<\/p>\n
       19. I also agree with the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner that Ext.P34 reveals a non-<\/p>\n
application  of  the   mind    by  the  disciplinary<\/p>\n
authority.  The further procedure followed by the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 13 ::\n<\/p>\n
\ndisciplinary  authority  in     affording  a  personal<\/p>\n
hearing  in  November,  2002     and  then  taking   a<\/p>\n
decision thereon, after a period of 14 months, on<\/p>\n
the eve of the petitioner’s retirement, is also<\/p>\n
reflective of an attitude, which did not reflect an<\/p>\n
anxiety to conform to the principles of natural<\/p>\n
justice.    It  could  be   a    case  of  either the<\/p>\n
disciplinary  authority  considering     the  personal<\/p>\n
hearing as an empty formality or a case where the<\/p>\n
authority has already taken a decision prior to the<\/p>\n
personal hearing and then deciding to defer the<\/p>\n
issuance of an order till the eve of the retirement<\/p>\n
of the petitioner.    One is not able to give any<\/p>\n
other reasonable explanation for the fact that a<\/p>\n
personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on<\/p>\n
16.11.2001, but Ext.P34 came to be passed 14 months<\/p>\n
thereafter,  on   the  eve      of  the   petitioner’s<\/p>\n
retirement-on  28.2.2003.       I  am,  therefore,  in<\/p>\n
agreement with the contention of the petitioner<\/p>\n
that, there has been a violation of the principles<\/p>\n
of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
       20. I further take note of the contention<\/p>\n
taken by the petitioner that there seems to have<\/p>\n
been a pronounced selective appreciation of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 14 ::\n<\/p>\n
\ndocuments by the Enquiry Officer.    Exts.D1 to D28<\/p>\n
were marked on the side of the employee.   Dws.1 to<\/p>\n
11 were examined.   Except for a reference in two<\/p>\n
places, the Enquiry Report is completely silent<\/p>\n
regarding either the merits of the defence evidence<\/p>\n
or the lack of it, as the case may be.     In fact,<\/p>\n
there is not even a reference to the documents or<\/p>\n
evidence adduced by the employee, if not, for<\/p>\n
accepting it, at least, for declaring that the same<\/p>\n
are irrelevant.  In short, the evidence adduced by<\/p>\n
the employee seems to have been completely ignored,<\/p>\n
which was obviously unjust.\n<\/p>\n
       21. In the circumstances, I am of the view<\/p>\n
that the disciplinary proceedings which resulted in<\/p>\n
Ext.P34 order was vitiated by the principles of<\/p>\n
natural justice.  Petitioner was not dealt with in<\/p>\n
a fair manner by the disciplinary authority.    The<\/p>\n
serious  objections  raised     by him against  the<\/p>\n
findings in the Enquiry Report have not merited<\/p>\n
even a cursory consideration at the hands of the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority.    Petitioner was denied an<\/p>\n
opportunity to prosecute a challenge against the<\/p>\n
order passed by the disciplinary authority, even<\/p>\n
when he was in service and therefore, he was denied<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                        :: 15 ::\n<\/p>\n
\na reasonable chance to seek a promotion to the next<\/p>\n
higher post of Regional Manager, which otherwise he<\/p>\n
would have been entitled to.      I am in agreement<\/p>\n
with the contention taken up by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner that essentially the petitioner<\/p>\n
was handed a raw deal.\n<\/p>\n
       22. An instrumentality of the State is<\/p>\n
expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner.<\/p>\n
It is true that the petitioner has retired from<\/p>\n
service on 28.2.2003.  It is, therefore, necessary<\/p>\n
for this court to mould the reliefs, which the<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to.    In the circumstances, I<\/p>\n
do not think, the petitioner would be entitled to<\/p>\n
wages of the Regional Manager from the date on<\/p>\n
which his juniors were promoted to the said post,<\/p>\n
till the date of his retirement.     But, having said<\/p>\n
so, I am of the view that his retirement benefits<\/p>\n
should  reflect  the  higher    pay,  which  he   was<\/p>\n
entitled to, had he been promoted as Regional<\/p>\n
Manager at the appropriate time.\n<\/p>\n
       In   the  result,    the   writ  petition   is<\/p>\n
allowed.  Exts.P34 and P41 are set aside.     The 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent  is  directed    to   pass  fresh  orders,<\/p>\n
treating the petitioner as having been eligible for<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).NO.34691\/04<\/p>\n
                          :: 16 ::\n<\/p>\n
\npromotion to the post of Regional Manager, with<\/p>\n
reference  to    the   date  on   which his immediate<\/p>\n
juniors were promoted as per Ext.P2 list.    The last<\/p>\n
drawn pay of the petitioner as on 28.2.2003 should,<\/p>\n
therefore, be worked out as if the petitioner had<\/p>\n
been promoted as the Regional Manager with effect<\/p>\n
from the above date and the retirement benefits due<\/p>\n
to the petitioner shall be recomputed accordingly.<\/p>\n
The process, as outlined above, shall be completed<\/p>\n
and the benefits due to the petitioner shall be<\/p>\n
disbursed within a period of three months from the<\/p>\n
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n
                                           Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                          (V.GIRI)
\n                                           JUDGE
\nsk\/<\/p>\n
         \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial … on 21 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 34691 of 2004(E) 1. K.POCKER, S\/O.KUNHIKUTTY ALI HAJI, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES … Respondent 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3. M.K.KARTHIKEYAN, 4. SRI.P.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE, For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial ... on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial ... on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-12T06:18:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial … on 21 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-12T06:18:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2998,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008\",\"name\":\"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial ... on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-12T06:18:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial … on 21 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial ... on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial ... on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-12T06:18:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial … on 21 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-12T06:18:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008"},"wordCount":2998,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008","name":"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial ... on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-12T06:18:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-pocker-vs-the-kerala-state-financial-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial … on 21 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}