R.MALINI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.5362 of 2018 to the extent the prayer for his reinstatement was declined even after ordering to keep the impugned orders viz., Exts.P5 and P6, in abeyance. According to the appellant, as a necessary sequel to the order to keep Exts.P5 and P6 orders in abeyance, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed for his reinstatement.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case that constrained the appellant to prefer this appeal raising such a contention are as follows:- The appellant herein was working as Accounts Officer under the Kerala State Horticultural Products Development Corporation Limited (for short 'Horticorp), which is a Public Sector undertaking, on contract basis. Going by Ext.P4 agreement dated 19.7.2017, the period of contract would expire only in July, 2018. While continuing on contract basis, the Horticorp issued Ext.P5 order on 12.02.2018 terminating her service forthwith, pursuant to a direction issued by the Government as per Ext.P6 dated 2.02.2018. As per Ext.P6, the Government had informed the Managing Director of the Horticorp that Vigilance of the Department, on enquiry, found serious dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant in discharging her duty as Accounts Officer and required to terminate her service immediately. Evidently, it is on the basis of Ext.P6 that the appellant was terminated from service. The appellant had been working as Accounts Officer in Horticorp, on contract basis on the strength of agreements executed from time to time, since 2005 and a recommendation by the Horticorp for regularisation was pending with the Government. It is in the said circumstances that the writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P5 and P6 taking up the contention that termination on the aforesaid ground would cast stigma on her. Evidently, the learned Single Judge upheld the contention that being a contract employee would not and could not be a reason for terminating service by an order casting stigma and disposed of the matter leaving liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner consistent with the principles of natural justice and in the meanwhile to keep Exts.P5 and P6 orders in abeyance. The learned Single Judge had also directed that if such proceedings are already initiated, they should be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Evidently, the learned Single Judge thought it inappropriate to issue direction for her reinstatement as she was holding the post of Accounts Officer and taking note of the nature of allegations. At the same time, the question whether the appellant should be reinstated or not, in the meanwhile, was left to the respondents. The appellant who got reliefs to certain extent as per the impugned judgment is raising grievance against the judgment only on the ground that having ordered to keep the orders impugned viz., Exts.P5 and P6 in abeyance, pending enquiry the reinstatement in service was unjustly denied.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned standing counsel for the second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.