HARIKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Manager in the 2nd respondent Corporation is challenging the order terminating him from service.

(2.) Petitioner commenced his service under the respondent as a Procurement in-charge at Munnar on daily wages. As per Ext.P1 order issued on 10.02.2015, he was posted as Assistant Manager in-charge at Munnar. Petitioner submits that he has been working with due diligence. Producing Ext.P2 letter of 05.11.2014, addressed to the Managing Director, he claims that he had addressed the 2nd respondent pointing out the inferior quality of vegetables, which were being produced in the high range areas of Munnar available for procurement.

(3.) While so, petitioner was transferred to Malappuram. While working there he received Ext.P3 Memo dated 11.09.2017. It was stated that the 2nd respondent Corporation is in receipt of a letter from the Government issued on 28.09.2017, pointing out that there has been large scale allegations regarding the procurement and distribution of the vegetables through the Horticorp in which the petitioner is also involved.