JEEJO RAVEENDRAN DEPUTY MANAGER Vs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VEGETABLES AND FRUITS PROMOTION COUNCIL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P(C)No.38107/2017 is the appellant herein challenging the judgment dismissing the writ petition, under Section 5 of the High Court Act. The appellant, who is working as Deputy Manager under respondents 1 to 3, is facing disciplinary action based on the memo of charges issued to him on 28.5.2015. After submitting explanations to the memo of charges, he had approached this court on an earlier occasion in a writ petition, when he was informed about appointment of an Inquiry Officer. The said writ petition was disposed of through Ext.P6 judgment by directing the respondents to finalise the disciplinary action in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. Thereafter the present writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order, through which the 1st respondent had appointed the 4th respondent as Inquiry Officer based on the contention that, under the relevant provision contained in the Staff Regulations, appointment of an Advocate as Inquiry Officer is not permissible; and unless there is any specific provision which permits for appointment of an Advocate as the Inquiry Officer, the respondents cannot be permitted to conduct the enquiry through an Advocate.

(2.) While considering the writ petition, the learned Single Judge found that, the appellant had already approached this court in an earlier writ petition pointing out that an Advocate is going to be appointed as Inquiry Officer and the contentions in that respect was already considered in Ext.P6 judgment. Since it was found that the appellant had not raised the present challenges in the earlier writ petition and since Ext.P6 judgment was not challenged in appeal, he cannot be permitted to raise the contentions in the present writ petition, which could have been urged in the first writ petition itself. The writ petition was dismissed by holding that, it is hit by constructive res judicata. The said judgment is impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) Heard; Counsel for the appellant and the Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.