P. Gireesh Kumar v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ANU SIVARAMAN
Judgment Date: 2021-01-25
Court Decision / Holding: The review petitions are dismissed; no error of law or fact has been shown to warrant review; the common judgment dated 26.03.2019 stands.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Cochin Devaswom Board Round North Trichur represented by its Secretary

Respondents

P. Gireesh Kumar
Sivanandan A
P. M. Murali
T. S. Ambedkar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Narayanan (Parur)
• Sm. Lisha K.R.

Counsels for Respondents

• K.A. Sanjeetha
• Elvin Peter
• Renjith Narayan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a batch of four review petitions filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board challenging a common judgment dated 26 March 2019 in four W.P.(C) petitions involving reinstatement after suspensions, disciplinary proceedings, and criminal acquittals. The petitions argue that a subsequent Supreme Court decision, Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Mani (2017 KHC 6765), was not noticed and thus that the present judgment rests on an erroneous proposition. The court recalls that in earlier proceedings it had directed the respondents to consider reinstatement, giving weight to an honourable acquittal in the criminal cases. It notes that the Board had refused to reckon the impact of the acquittals on the charges, a course found to be erroneous. The Bharat Heavy Electricals decision is said to lay down a proposition limited to Labour Court remand and not universally applicable to disciplinary proceedings; the court emphasizes awareness of related jurisprudence, including Bhaskar Reddy S. & N. v. Superintendent of Police. The judge concludes that there is no error of law or fact in the challenged judgment, even if the cited decision was not brought to notice; thus the review petitions fail and are dismissed. The order closes with the standard discharge of the petitions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The review petitioners contend that the decision in Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Mani (2017 KHC 6765) was not noticed and has altered the legal position, rendering the earlier directive to consider acquittals erroneous. They rely on the earlier directions to reinstate taking into account the petitioners' honourable acquittals and argue that non-notice of the later decision undermines the judgment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. laid down a proposition limited to remand in Labour Court contexts and is not an absolute rule affecting disciplinary proceedings. They argue that even if the later decision was not noticed, it would not necessarily alter the reasoning of the earlier judgment, and the review petitions do not establish a valid ground for review; the court has to weigh the acquittals in light of the established standard of proof in disciplinary matters.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.'s case	2017 KHC 6765	Distinguished	The court distinguishes this decision as not applying to the present case and states it laid down a different proposition.
Bhaskar Reddy S & another v. Superintendent of Police	2014 KHC 4752	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the court’s discussion of related jurisprudence but not central to the ruling.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942** **RP.No.717 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 1538/2018** **JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1538/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26.3.2019** **------------------** ## **- REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :** **COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ROUND NORTH TRICHUR - 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SMT.LISHA K.R.** ## **- RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :** **P. GIREESH KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, VADAPURATH HOUSE, PERUMPALLY P. O., ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV.K.A.SANJEETHA BY ADV.ELVIN PETER BY ADV.RENJITH NARAYAN** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2021, ALONG WITH RP.744/2020, RP.745/2020 AND RP.789/2020, THE COURT ON 25-01-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 2 :- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942** **RP.No.744 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 2342/2018** **JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2342/2018(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26.3.2019** **------------------** ## **- REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS :** - **1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BUILDING, THRISSUR – 680 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2 THE SECRETARY, THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BUILDING, THRISSUR – 680 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SMT.LISHA K.R.** ## **- RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :** **SIVANANDAN.A, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. KUMARA MENON, AMMAPPILLY HOUSE, CHERUVALOOR, KORATTY, THRISSUR - 680 308** **BY ADV. ELVIN PETER P.J.** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2021, ALONG WITH RP.717/2020, RP.745/2020 AND RP.789/2020, THE COURT ON 25-01-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 3 :- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942** **RP.No.745 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 2503/2018** **JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2503/2018(K) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26.3.2019** **-------------------** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS :-** - **1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BUILDING, THRISSUR - 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** - **2 THE SECRETARY, THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDING, THRISSUR - 680 001** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SMT.LISHA K.R.** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :-** **P.M.MURALI, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. MALLU, PANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNAMANADA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 741.** **BY ADV. ELVIN PETER P.J.** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2021, ALONG WITH RP.717/2020, RP.744/2020 AND RP.789/2020, THE COURT ON 25-01-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** - R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 4 :- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942** **RP.No.789 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 38496/2017** **JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38496/2017(J) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26.3.2019** - **-------------------** ## **- REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS :** - **1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR – 680 001.** - **2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANJIKKULAM GROUP, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR.** - **3 THE VIGILANCE OFFICER (ENQUIRY OFFICER), COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR – 680 001.** - **4 THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR – 680 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.NARAYANAN (PARUR) SMT.LISHA K.R.** ## **- RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :** ## **T.S.AMBEDKAR** **MAASAPPIDI, (FORMER) ANNAMANADA DEVASWOM, S/O.SINKARAN, THEVARPADATH VEEDU,** **AVITTAPPILLI DESOM, P.O.MATTATHUR, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 684.** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2021, ALONG WITH RP.717/2020, RP.744/2020 AND RP.745/2020, THE COURT ON 25-01-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 5 :- ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **--------------------------------------------------------** **R.P. No.717 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538 of 2018, R.P. No.744 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342 of 2018, R.P. No.745 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503 of 2018 and R.P. No.789 of 2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496 of 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of January, 2021** ## **O R D E R** These review petitions are filed seeking a review of the common judgment dated 26.3.2019. The sole ground raised for review of the judgment is that a subsequent decision of the Apex Court has not been noticed while rendering the judgment. It is contended that the decision of the Apex Court in **Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.** v. **M. Mani** [2017 KHC 6765] was not brought to the notice of this Court which has resulted in an error of law which vitiates the judgment. 2. I have considered the contentions advanced. The facts of the case are as follows :- The petitioners had been placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings as well as judicial proceedings were taken against them. There was an acquittal in the criminal case. In earlier round of writ petitions, the petitioners had approached this Court seeking reinstatement in service. This Court had directed the respondents to consider the request for reinstatement taking note of the acquittal in the criminal cases. R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 6 :- However, relying on a disputed oral confession made by the delinquent officers before the Board, the Board had refused to consider the effect of the acquittal by the criminal court. This was under challenge. After considering the contentions advanced on either side, this Court held that the refusal on the part of the respondents to consider the impact of the acquittal in the criminal case on identical charges vitiated the order of the Board and directed reconsideration of the issue, taking note of the decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in **Bhaskar Reddy S & another** v. **Superintendent of Police** [2014 KHC 4752]. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner would contend that the decision in **Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.'s case** supra lays down a different proposition and that as such, the judgment is vitiated. I am unable to agree with the arguments. 4. The decision in **Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.'s case** only laid down a proposition that in a case where the Labour Court had found that the departmental enquiry was properly conducted, the remand of the case to the Labour Court on the ground of acquittal in criminal proceedings was not proper. This Court, while rendering the judgment under review was fully aware of R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 7 :- the case law on the point with regard to the applicability of the judgments in criminal cases and their effect on pending disciplinary proceedings. This Court had considered the issue on an earlier occasion and had specifically directed the consideration of the request of the petitioners for reinstatement taking note of their honourable acquittal in the criminal case. It was the order passed by the Cochin Devaswom Board pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, which was under challenge in the writ petitions and this Court, after considering the issue had specifically found that the order passed without considering the acquittal, at least as a relevant fact, was completely erroneous and untenable. The contention of the respondents that the standard of proof in a criminal proceedings and in disciplinary matters are different had been specifically considered in the judgment. It was thereafter that a direction was issued to reconsider the issue taking note of the acquittal as well. 5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the contention that a judgment had not been brought to the notice of this Court is not a ground for review of the judgment. I further find that even if the judgment relied on had been brought to the notice of this Court, it would have made no difference whatsoever since the judgment relied on in the review petitions does not lay down R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 8 :- any absolute proposition that the acquittal in a criminal case is not to be looked into in any circumstances. In the above view of the matter, there is absolutely no error of law or fact vitiating the judgment which justifies a review. The review petitions, therefore, fail and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** Jvt/21.1.2021 R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 9 :- ## **APPENDIX OF RP 717/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.03.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.1538/2018 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 10 :- ## **APPENDIX OF RP 744/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER IS DATED 31-102008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES DATED 2804-2009 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 30-09-2009 SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER BEFORE THE PETITIONER BOARD. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8-12-2009 ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER 10873/2008 DATED 19-2-2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BOARD ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-04-2013 BY THE JFCM CHALAKUDY IN C.C NO. 551/09 ANNEXURE G A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-02-2017 IN W.P(C) NO. 16565/2011 ANNEXURE H TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-10-2017 IN C.O.C 1730/2017 ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M. 10873/2008 DATED 12-10-2017** R.P. No.717/2020 in W.P.(C) No.1538/2018, R.P. No.744/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2342/2018, R.P. No.745/2020 in W.P.(C) No.2503/2018 and R.P. No.789/2020 in W.P.(C) No.38496/2017 -: 11 :- ## **APPENDIX OF RP 745/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A** **CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-03-2019 IN W.P(C) NO. 2503/2018 OF THE LEARNED SIGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**