LAKSHMANAN NAMBIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though the prayer in these Original Petitions related only to the action taken by the Management against the petitioners in suspending them from service pending disciplinary action, the petitioners have made several averments relating to the merit of the case, which are of course denied by counter affidavits. In view of the fact that I am concerned in these two cases only with the validity of the suspension pending enquiry, and the correctness of the procedure adopted in this regard, I am not examining the merit of the case against the petitioners which is the subject matter of enquiry.

(2.) Petitioner in O.P. 10481 of 1990 is an Assistant Executive Engineer, and the petitioner in O.P. 10757 of 1990 is a Works Manager of the respondent Company. The Company is admittedly an authority under Art.12 of the Constitution of India. Ext. P11 dated 10-3-1982 is the appointment order of the petitioner in O.P. 10481 of 1990, and it is not disputed that similar appointment order has been issued to the petitioner in O.P. 10757 of 1990 also. Clause 9 of the appointment order says that during the tenure of service, the petitioner will be governed by the standing orders and other rules and regulations of the Company which are in force and which may come into force from time to time and which are applicable to the employees of the category to which he belongs. The same provision is applicable to the petitioner in O.P. 10757 of 1990 as well. The standing orders and the rules and regulations of the Company relating to the service conditions applicable to the petitioners are contained in Ext. P9. Clause.12 of Ext. P9 details the acts or omissions on the part of an employee which will amount to misconduct. Clause.13 details the punishment to be given if any employee is found to be guilty of misconduct, depending on the gravity of the misconduct. Clause.15 provides the procedure to be adopted for imposing punishment for a misconduct.

(3.) I feel that this case has to be decided on the basis of the interpretation of Clause.15 of Ext. P9 which reads as follows: