MALAYIL SAMAD Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, BHARATI AIRTEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

(2.) The petitioner is working as Sub Inspector of Police. While the petitioner was working at Coastal Police Station, Thalassery, in connection with an injury sustained to the petitioner, he was under treatment. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 19.08.2020 his immediate superior officer informed him to go for duty which he refused because of his ailments. It is the case of the petitioner that the said telephonic conversation led unhappy situation. It is the further case of the petitioner that, based on the complaint of the said superior officer, a disciplinary proceedings is initiated against the petitioner. The recorded mobile audio clip of the petitioner has been produced as evidence against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it is an edited version. Since the duration of the call is not tallying with the produced clip, the petitioner applied for the call records from the respondent company to substantiate his contention in the disciplinary proceedings. The respondent company refused to supply the details. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.