C.P. PRADEEPKUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA BOOKS AND PUBLICATION SOCIETY KAKKANAD AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in 1982 as a Printing Helper under the respondent society on the scale of pay of Rs. 300 - 450. He was thereafter promoted as Letter Press Printer in 1993 on the scale of pay of Rs. 825 - 1420. While so, on account of unauthorised absence, he came to be served with a charge memo/suspension order on 18.03.2004 (Ext.P3). In the charge memo, while proceeding against the petitioner for an unauthorised absence noticed between 16.03.2004 and 18.03.2004, mention was also made of similar such instances of unauthorised absence that had been noticed in the past, and petitioner was asked to submit his explanation to the charge memo. Though the petitioner submitted a reply to the charge memo, the same was found to be unsatisfactory and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. The said enquiry culminated in Ext.P4 Enquiry Report, which found the petitioner guilty of the charges alleged against him. The respondents thereafter issued Ext.P5 notice proposing to impose a punishment of termination of service on the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter submitted an explanation against the proposed punishment and after a hearing in the matter, the disciplinary authority passed Ext.P7 order imposing a lesser punishment of demotion to the lower post of Printing Helper in the scale of Rs. 3050 - 5230 and fixing his basic pay at Rs. 3050/-. The petitioner was also held not entitled for wages during the suspension period and he was directed to report for duty from 01.01.2005. The service record of the petitioner would indicate that thereafter he was promoted as Printing Machine Assistant on 16.02.2012 and still later as Printing Machine Operator on 16.03.2015. He is said to have retired from service with effect from 16.11.2016. In the writ petition, the challenge is to Ext.P7 and P18 orders, the former being the order of the disciplinary authority passed on 27.07.2004, and the latter being the order dated 01.01.2016 rejecting his representation for taking a lenient view in the matter of punishment.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent society wherein the circumstances leading to the issuance of Ext.P7 order is narrated. It is also stated that pursuant to Ext.P7 order, the petitioner accepted the same and joined duty on 01.01.2005 and Ext.P7 order was not challenged before any authority till 2016. The delay in approaching this Court against the said order is cited to contend that, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained by this Court. As regards the merits of the case, it is stated that the enquiry report clearly indicated that the petitioner was guilty of the charges alleged against him and, although a higher punishment was proposed, taking note of his financial situation as also his domestic circumstances, the respondents had decided to impose a lesser punishment of demotion to the lower post through Ext.P7 order. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner had joined duty on 01.01.2005 and continued in service, availing the timely promotions, and had retired from service on 16.11.2016. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the submissions in the counter affidavit and producing copies of the representations that were filed during the period between Exts.P7 and Ext.P18 orders.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent society.