THOMSON C. VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions have raised identical issues, seeking relief against the same set of respondents, this Court proposes to dispose of both the Writ Petitions through a common judgment. For the case of reference and felicity of expression, the facts in W.P. (C) No. 25577/2014 are taken as the basis for the consideration of the issue. As the learned Senior Counsel, Sri K. Jaju Babu, representing the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 25577/2014, has put it, this case may have a chequered history, but the issue presented before this Court is simple, not calling for any elaborate adjudication. Putting the whole issue in prospective, the grievance of the petitioner can be stated to be that the Director, having been empowered under R. 7 Chapter III of K.E.R. to disqualify an erring Manager, could have exercised the said power in its entirety, instead of delegating it in piece meal to the fourth respondent. In other words, having made the issue of placing the petitioner under disqualification, after following the due process as has been mandated under R. 7 Chapter III of K.E.R., instead of passing the final orders, the second respondent ought not have directed the fourth respondent to disqualify the petitioner, yet again after going through the process mandated under Rule 7, by the fourth respondent.

(2.) As could be seen at the very beginning, the Government passed Exhibit P1 order disqualifying the Manager. Assailing the action of the Government that though it is a superior authority, it is not the authority empowered in terms of K.E.R. to disqualify the Manager, the aggrieved persons laid challenge against the said Exhibit P1. Through Exhibits P2 and P3 judgments of this Court quashed Exhibit P1 and permitted the second respondent, the competent authority, to initiate proceedings in terms of R. 7 Chapter III of K.E.R. Yet again, when the Additional Director, instead of the second respondent, passed Exhibits P5 and P6 orders disqualifying the petitioner and others, who, intact, impugned said orders.

(3.) Through Exhibits P7 and P9 as well as through some other judgments, this Court set aside Exhibits P5 and P6 and directed the second respondent to pass orders after hearing all the parties concerned. Under those circumstances, Exhibit P12 came to be passed, which the petitioner impugns.