Kerala State Co-operative Union v. Dr. (Prof) R. Gangadharan Nair and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 19949 OF 2016`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION SAMSTHANA SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, OOTTUKUZHI, P.B. NO.108, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.MONAYE SRI.M.PAUL VARGHESE ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` ``` 1 DR.(PROF)R.GANGADHARAN NAIR S/O KUNJIRAMAN PILLAI,AGED YEARS, RESIDING AT NALUKETTU, T.C 8/401, MANGATTUKADAVU, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006 ``` ``` 2 THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 ``` ``` 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-595 001 ``` **2** ## **W.P.(C)No.19949 of 2016** ``` 4 LOK AYUKTA OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR ``` ``` BY ADVS. MILESH.V.PAVIYALA MARTIN JOSE P ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR.GP.V.TEKCHAND; ADV.THOMAS P. KURUVILA FOR ADV. P.MARTIN JOSE FOR R1. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C)No.19949 of 2016** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 5[th] day of February 2024 ## **A.J. Desai, C.J.** By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellant/Kerala State Co-operative Union has challenged the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.763 of 2010-B, by which the Lok Ayukta has entertained the complaint filed by the 1[st] respondent/complainant for an order directing the respondents to reinstate the complainant in the appellant Union and directing the appellant Union to pay the monthly remuneration for March 2010 and adequate compensation, to the complainant. 2. Short facts that arise from the record are as under: The original complainant, who had worked with the Kerala University for 30 years, joined as the Director of the Kerala Institute of Co-operative Management (KICMA), a professional management institute managed by the appellant on contract **W.P.(C)No.19949 of 2016** **4** basis for a period of two years from 01.08.2007 for a monthly remuneration of Rs.25,000/-. On 07.03.2008, the period of contract was extended to five years with effect from 01.04.2008, raising the monthly remuneration to Rs.50,000/- per month. 3. Whileso, some allegations were made against the 1[st] respondent/complainant with regard to his conduct, and therefore, he was served with a notice on 15.03.2010. The authority, after examining the response to the notice, conducted an enquiry and ultimately terminated his service on 31.03.2010. This action was challenged by the 1[st] respondent before the Lok Ayukta by filing the complaint. The Lok Ayukta accepted the complaint and passed the following order: “Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, while quashing the Enquiry Report and Ext.P9 order of termination of the contractual appointment of the complainant, we direct the respondents to pay the remuneration of the complainant for the month of March, 2010 which was admittedly not paid to him. In our view, interest of justice will be met if respondents are further directed to pay three months’ remuneration **W.P.(C)No.19949 of 2016** **5** amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant. Respondents shall make the payment indicated above within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The said order is under challenge before this court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Lok Ayukta has committed an error in accepting the complaint and issuing directions, which is beyond the scope of the powers of the Lok Ayukta. By taking us through the provisions under section 8(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, he would submit that the Lok Ayukta has no power to order reinstatement and grant compensation. 5. He would submit that this court, in the case of **Kamalu** **v. State of Kerala** reported in 2000 (3) KLT 227, held that such directions are beyond the scope of powers of the Lok Ayukta. 6. By relying upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of **Additional Tahsildar v. Urmila G.** reported in 2023 (7) KHC 497, he would submit that even otherwise, the Lok Ayukta cannot issue directions and have only **6** ## **W.P.(C)No.19949 of 2016** recommendatory powers under section 12 of the Lok Ayukta Act. He, therefore, would submit that the writ petition be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent/complainant supported the decision of the Lok Ayukta. However, he would submit that if the court accepts the writ petition, the original complainant may be permitted to take out any appropriate proceedings with regard to his grievances and the period undergone for deciding the issue may be exempted. 8. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the 1[st] respondent/ complainant was appointed as the Director of KICMA on contract basis and was terminated from service based on certain alleged irregularities. In such circumstances, the Lok Ayukta has committed an error, since the order is passed beyond the scope of section 8 of the Lok Ayukta Act. The judgment in **Kamalu v.** **State of Kerala** (supra) is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Even otherwise, the case is covered by the Apex Court **W.P.(C)No.19949 of 2016** **7** ## decision in **Additional Tahsildar v. Urmila G.** (supra). Hence, we allow this writ petition and quash the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta. If the petitioner intends to raise his contentions before a competent forum, he may do so within a period of three months from today. If such an action is taken, the concerned authority/forum shall not dismiss the case only on the ground of limitation. We have not examined the merits and demerits of the rival claims raised in these proceedings. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- **A.J. Desai Chief Justice** Sd/- **V.G. Arun Judge** **vpv** **W.P.(C)No.19949 of 2016** **8** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19949/2016`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 7.3.2008 APPOINTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT ``` ``` P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.3.2010 ``` ``` P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER DATED 31.3.2010 ``` ``` P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT DATED 31.3.2010 P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 31.3.2010 ``` ``` P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT NO.763/2010 DATED 30.4.2010 P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 25.7.2011 P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.3.2016 OF THE LOK AYUKTA ```