F YESUDAS Vs. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a workman under the respondent. In this writ petition, he is challenging Ext.P1 order issued by the respondent placing the petitioner under suspension pending further disciplinary action. The allegation in Ext.P1 is that in the matter of certain purchases of electrical items effected by the petitioner, irregularities have been noticed. The contentions raised by the petitioner are mainly that he is the member of a trade union which have raised allegations of corruption and mal administration against the Managing Director of the respondent, that certain disputes raised by the Union are pending before the labour authorities and that on the complaint made before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, Ext.P6 enquiry report has been submitted. It is stated that in view of all this, in order to wreak vengeance on the petitioner, he has been placed under suspension.

(2.) Yet another contention raised is that the purchase of electrical items mentioned in Ext.P1 were on the directions of the Deputy General Manager (BT), his superior. It is stated that purchases were effected, goods were delivered at the store and that he having acted on the directions of the superior, a case of misconduct is not made out to place him under suspension. It is also his contention that he was only discharging his duties as a subordinate in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P2, the certified standing orders applicable to the establishment.

(3.) I shall first deal with the contention of the petitioner that he was only acting on the directions of his superior and therefore no case of misconduct has been made out. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been stated that the Deputy General Manager (BT) had not entrusted the petitioner with the responsibility to purchase any article from Everest Agencies, Cochin. It is stated that the DGM had not received any quotation from the supplier and that Ext.P4 has not been produced before the DGM also. According to the respondent, petitioner unauthorisedly effected the purchase, and that to show that the purchase was at a lower price, he obtained Exts.R1 and R1(a) offers from two other suppliers at higher rates. It is also their case that when Ext.R1(c) and (d) bills were received for the purchases effected by the petitioner, it was revealed that the amount of purchase exceeded Rs.20,000/- and that, as any purchase beyond Rs.20,000/- was permissible only after inviting quotations as per the provisions of the Stock Purchase Manual, the matter was referred to the superiors. It is stated that thereupon a preliminary enquiry was conducted and that report indicated irregularities on the part of the petitioner and that it was therefore that the petitioner was placed under suspension.