P. Sooria Narayanan v. Malabar Cements Limited

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 15405 of 2013** **-----------------------** **PETITIONER** ## **-----------** **P.SOORIA NARAYANAN, ADITHYA,NETTAIKODATH HOUSE, KALAVATH ROAD,PALARIVATTOM.P.O, ERNAKULAM-682025.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.N.SATHEESH** **SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, WALAYAR.P.O,PALAKKAD-678624.** **2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED, WALAYAR.P.O,PALAKKAD-678624.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA ANAND** **SRI JOSEPH SEBASTION** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** **WP(C).No. 15405 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO MD/85/2010 DATED 31-07-2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.13365/H2/2010/ID DATED 19-11-2010 RECEIVED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT** - **EXHIBIT-P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.MD/414/2010 DATED 14-12-2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT-P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25-12-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE MANAGER(FINANCE)OF MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,BY SHRI.K.V.VENKITARAMAN,CHARTERED ACCOUNTS** - **EXHIBIT-P5 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12-01-2011 SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY SHRI.K.S.MENON,ADVOCATE** - **EXHIBIT-P6 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.MD/504/2011 DATED 14-01-2011 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P7 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.13365/H2/2010/ID DATED 27-12-2011 RECEIVED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT** - **EXHIBIT-P8 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO.MDO/26-57/2514 DATED** - **03-04-2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P9 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS BEGINNING FROM 23-06-2012 TO 06-10-2012** - **EXHIBIT-P10 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 20-10-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER,SHRI.SAJU JOHN BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P11 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.PA-2/PF-720/2013/1689 DATED 11-032013 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P12 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-03-2013 SENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT-P13 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 22-01-2013 FILED BY THE DY.GENERAL MANAGER(P&A),MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED,BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT-P14 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.PA-2/PF-720/2013/3355 DATED 14-052013 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT-P15 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24-05-2013 SENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT-P16 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.PA-2.720/2013/3670 DATED 25-05-2013 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P17 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25-05-2013 SENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT-P18 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER NO.PA-2/PF-720/2013/3779 DATED 31-05-2013 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** **WP(C).No. 15405 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------** - **EXHIBIT-P19 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.7.2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SHRI N.R.SUBRAMANIAM, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED IN RECOGNITION OF THE OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT-P20 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO MPA/462/2003 DATED 29.12.2003 SANCTIONING ADVANCE INCREMENT TO THE PETITIONER IN APPRECIATION OF HIS OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE.** - **EXHIBIT-P21 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.6.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SHRI.S.S.MONI, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALABAR CEMENTS LMITED IN RECOGNITION OF THE OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT-22 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.PD/663/90 DATED 8.5.1990 SANCTIONING MONTHLY ALLOWANCE OF RS.75/- FROM 21-14-1990 ONWARDS TO THE PETITIONER FOR ATTENDING SECRETARIAL WORK OF CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT-P23 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR/LETTER IN PROOF OF THE PETITIONER WINNING HIGH ATTENDANCE AWARD DURING THE YEARS 1988.1989.1990 AND 1993 IN MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT-P24 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.1.2005 TO 31.12.2005 ASSESSMENT DATED 1.1.2006.** - **EXHIBIT-P25 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.1.2006 TO 31.12.2006 ASSESSMENT DATED 1.1.2007.** - **EXHIBIT-P26 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.1.2007 TO 31.12.2007 ASSESSMENT DATED 1.1.2008.** - **EXHIBIT-P27 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD FROM 8.4.2009 TO 31.12.2009 ASSESSMENT DATED 1.1.2010.** - **EXHIBIT-P28 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1.1.2010 TO 31.12.2010** - **EXHIBIT-P29 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO P1-1/PER-13/2017/2007 DATED 24.1.2007 TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER FROM PLANT AT WALAYAR TO SALES OFFICE AT KASARAGODE.** - **EXHIBIT-P30 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO P1-2/PF-720/2010 DATED 1.12.2010 REINSTATING THE PETITIONER AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (GRADEM6)** - **EXHIBIT-P31 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.5.2013 OF THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT-P32 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.PSN/28/2013 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO SHRI.K.RAJARAM THAMPI, COMMISSION SECRETARY, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION.** - **EXHIBIT-P33 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER (MS)NO.103/2010/ID DATED 30.4.2010.** - **EXHIBIT-P34 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER (MS) NO 103/97/ID DATED 2.7.1997 ON PROMOTION POLICY FOR UPGRADATION/TIME-BUND PROMOTION ETC TO THE MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED AND AMENDMENT THERETO AS PER GOVERNMENT ORDER (MS)NO.31/2005 ID DATED 18.3.2005.** **WP(C).No. 15405 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------** - **EXHIBIT-P35 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO PA-I/AD-11/2009 DATED 31.12.2009 ON DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT-P36 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO PA/1536/2001 DATED 24.11.2001 ON REDESIGNATION OF THE PETITIONER AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.** - **EXHIBIT-P37 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.10.2013 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT REQUESTING FOR INITIATING VIGILANCE ENQUIRY AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT CONNECTED WITH PLACEMENT OF ORDERS FOR CEMENT MILL INTERNALS IN MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED** - **EXHIBIT-P38 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGENDA ITEM NO23 ON GOVERNMENT ORDER (MS) NO 103/2020/ID DATED 30.4.2010 PLACED BEFORE THE 179TH BOARD MEETING OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT-P39 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO.SC/BM-179/2010 DATED 1.10.2010 SENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY SECRETARY TO THE FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS ENCLOSING BOARD APPROVED DELEGATION OF POWERS OF MANAGING DIRECTOR OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT-P40 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD IN THE CHAMBER OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED ON 18.1.2010** - **EXHIBIT-P41 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF 176TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED HELD ON 22.1.2010** - **EXHIBIT-P42 TRUE COPY OF THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011** - **EXHIBIT-P43 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF CAPITAL SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED HELD ON 16.4.2010.** - **EXHIBIT-P44 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF 178TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED HELD ON 29.4.2010.** - **EXHIBITP-P45 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE NO MT/02E/PRT/596/2010 DATED 19.5.2010 FOR SUPPLY & INSALLATION OF COMMON BAG HOUSE FOR HILN AND RAW MILL IN MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT-P46 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMITTEE OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT-P47 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGENDA ITEM NO.1 ON INSTALLATION OF COMMON BAG HOUSE FOR KILN AND RAW MILL PUT UP BEFORE THE CAPITAL SUB COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 27.7.2010** - **EXHIBIT-P48 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CAPITAL SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 27.7.2010** - **EXHIBIT-P49 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTE NO CS/178M/2010 DATED 5.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY SECRETARY OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED, FORWARDING THE BOARD APPROVED PURCHASE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO THE FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHER OFFICERS.** - **EXHIBIT-P50 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO MD/66/2010 DATED 12.7.2010 ON INTERNAL AUDIT-PRE-AUDIT OF PURCHASE AND OTHER PROPOSALS IN MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED.** **WP(C).No. 15405 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P51 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT NO MT/02/611/20010 DATED 4.8.2010 SENT BY THE FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED TO M/S HIMACHAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT-52 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGENDA ITEM NO 20 ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CAPITAL SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD HELD ON 27.7.2010** - **EXHIBIT-P53 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF 181ST MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED HELD ON 17/8/2010** - **EXHIBIT-P54 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 22.2.2012** - **EXHIBIT-P55 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPOSITION DATED 21.7.2012 AND 7.9.2012 OF SHRI G.NAMASIVAYAM ASSISTANT MANAGER (MATERIALS) IN-CHARGE, MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT-P56 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19.1.2010 PLACED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT REQUESTING FOR A TRANSFER TO CHERTHALA OFFICE.** - **EXHIBIT-P57 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF SUSPENSION PENDING ENQUIRY NO PA-2/PF1349/2013 ISSUED TO MR.PRAKASH JOSEPH,LEGAL OFFICER, MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED** - **EXHIBIT-P58 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.PA-2/PF-1349/2015 DATED 10.6.2015 ISSUED TO MR.PRAKASH JOSEPH, LEGAL OFFICER, MALABAR CEMENTS LIMITED EXONERATING HIM FROM ALL THE CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST HIM BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P59 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF ENQUIRY DATED 6.9.2012 IN RESPECT OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED INTO THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST MR.BAIJUMALIAKKAL.** - **EXHIBIT-P60 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF ENQUIRY DATED 6.9.2012 IN RESPECT OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED INTO THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST MR.B.AJITH KUMAR.** - **EXHIBIT-P61 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO PA-2/PF-349/2013 DATED 9.1.2013 ISSUED TO MR.BAIJU MALIAKKAL RE-INSTATING HIM INTO SERVICE.** - **EXHIBIT-P62 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO PA-2/PF-1321/2013 DATED 9.1.2013 ISSUED TO MR.B.AJITH KUMAR RE-INSTATING HIM INTO SERVICE.** - **EXHIBIT-P63 TRUE COPY OF VIGILANCE ENQUIRY REPORT NO VE9/2012/PKD DATED 29.1.2014.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **---------------------** - **R1(A) TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 8.2.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.** - **R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE GRADE PROMOTION DATED 8.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.** - **R1(D) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.1.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE LEGAL OFFICER.** - **R1(E) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.1.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER FINANCE.** ## **WP(C).No. 15405 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------** - **R1(F) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.1.2012 SUBMITTED BY ASST.MANAGER (MATERIALS)** - **R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 31.5.2010.** - **R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.12.2011 SENT BY THE RESPONDENTS TO HIMACHAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD.** - **R1(I) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 2.1.2012 TO RESPONDENTS.** - **R1(K) TRUE COPY OF THE NCCBM REORT IN OCTOBER 2012.** - **R1(L) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 2.2.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER.** - **R1(M) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 10.2.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS WITHOUT DOCUMENTS.** - **R1(N) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.2.2012 SENT BY THE RESPONDENTS TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** - **R1(O) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.3.2012 ON RABH.** - **R1(P) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO 10632/H2/98/ID DATED 14.8.1998.** - **R1(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 30.3.2012 ND THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING** - **R1(R) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA** - **R1(S) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 9478/2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 25.5.2012** - **R1(T) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A NO.1078/0212 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 14.6.2012.** - **R1(U) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 21.7.2012, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PRODUCTION OF 15 DOCUMENTS.** - **R1(V) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 11.8.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PRODUCTION OF 14 DOCUMENTS.** - **R1(W) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 21.8.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PRODUCTION OF MORE DOCUMENTS.** - **R1(X) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.9.2012 SENT BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER.** - **R1(Y) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.9.2012 SENT BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER.** - **R1(Z) TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 19.10.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRESENTING OFFICER.** - **R1Aa) TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER (WITHOUT EXTS)** - **R1(Bb) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.9.2010 SENT BY LATE V.SASEENDRAN TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.** **WP(C).No. 15405 of 2013 (A)** **---------------------------** **R1(Ac) TRUE COPY OF THE SOS MESSAGE DATED 5.6.2012.** - **R1(Ad) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.6.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT TO DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.** - **R1(Ae) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(RT) NO.362/2011/PLG DATED 14.11.2011** **/TRUE COPY/** **K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 18.6.2018** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 -----------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2018.** ## **J U D G M E N T** The order under challenge in this proceedings, which has been initiated against a dismissed employee of the respondent-Malabar Cements Ltd., a Government of Kerala undertaking, is regarding the legality and correctness of the major punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him, as per the impugned Ext.P-18 order, dated 31.5.2013. 2. The facts of the matter are briefly stated as follows: Memo of Charges was issued against the petitioner by the competent authority of the respondent-Malabar Cements Ltd. (employer), raising the following factual allegations and charges, as can be found from paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P-8, dated 3.4.2012, read as follows: _“2. You were responsible to put up all Government correspondence to MD that too in the capacity of PS to the Company Secretary as per order no. MD:85:2010 dated 31.07.2010. It would note be reasonable to believe that being an Officer with such an authority you had only typed out this letter implicating two former MDs and two Officers. This is seen as an attempt to weaken the case with regard to ceasing of Rs.50 lakhs by M/s.ARK Wood and Metals Pvt Ltd. from MCL. The letter to Government banking on just a report by an external Advocate, who does not belong to a Board Approved Panel without even consulting the Head of Personnel & Administration and appraising the Board is viewed seriously. It has brought discredit to the company and Management and is against the interest of the company._ _3. Moreover, just after reporting directly to MD that too in the capacity of personal Secretary to Company Secretary, you have not appraised the Government directives on limit for sanctioning investments to the MD and this led to release of Letter of Intent to_ ::2:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 _M/s.Himachal Environmental Engineering Co Ltd. without Board and Government approval for the project. This is a wilful negligence of duty especially when certain specific roles of the Company Secretary were assigned to you vide Office Order no. MD:85:2010 DT 31.07.2010. It is to be noted that the escalation of cost of RABH Project was consequent to the Capital Sub Committee Meeting of the Board on 27.07.2010. The Letter of Intent was issued on 04.08.2010 without the approval of the Board or Government.”_ 3. Accordingly, it has been alleged in Ext.P-8 Memo of Charges that the said misconduct committed by the petitioner as alleged above, is violative of the provisions contained in the applicable staff regulations of the respondent company. The charges are as follows: (See para 4 of Ext.P-8) “ _4. The following are the charges levelled against you: i) Wilful negligence of duty; ii) Acting in a manner intended to bring discredit to the company or management; iii) Pursuance of conduct against the interest of the company. iv) Wilful damage to the company”_ 4. In para 5 of Ext.P-8, it is also inter alia ordered that, in view of the gravity of the allegations raised against the petitioner, the petitioner was ordered to be kept under suspension with immediate effect, pending the conduct of the personal enquiry. The allegations raised in Ext.P-8 against the petitioner pertain to the period when he had discharged his duties and functions as the Personal Secretary to the Company Secretary to the respondent company during the period from 26.2.2010 to 28.1.2011. Later, the petitioner was transferred and was given a different posting and he was working in the Kottayam Sales ::3:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 Office of the respondent company at the time of issuance of Ext.P-8, dated 3.4.2012. 5. Pursuant to Ext.P-8 Memo of Charges, the petitioner has given his defence version and the disciplinary enquiry proceedings against him pursuant to Ext.P-10 was set in motion in terms of the provisions contained in the staff regulations and thereafter a domestic enquiry was conducted. This resulted in Ext.P-9. A practising advocate was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. The management had examined 7 witnesses (viz., MWs 1 to 7) and marked 22 documents (viz., Exts.M1 to M22). After the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner had submitted his written submissions and argument notes as Ext.R-1(z) along with the enclosures. The Enquiry Officer has submitted Ext.P10 Enquiry Report, dated 20.10.2012, wherein, it was held that the petitioner is guilty of both the above said charges. The respondent company, as per Ext.P-11, had furnished to the petitioner a copy of Ext.P-10 Enquiry Report and had called upon him to submit his representation/written submission on the findings in the said Enquiry Report within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. After receipt of Ext.P-11 communication, dated 11.3.2013, the petitioner had sought for time for furnishing his objections to the Enquriy Report as per Ext.P-12 dated 18.3.2013 and had also sought for some additional ::4:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 materials and clarifications. The management had taken the stand that the additional clarifications and materials are not necessary and relevant for deciding on the issues as to the correctness of the fact findings of the Enquiry Report. But it appears that the petitioner did not submit his written objections to Ext.P-10 Enquiry Report to the competent authority of the respondent company within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the respondent company had issued the impugned Ext.P-18 order, dated 31.5.2013, wherein, it has been ordered that the disciplinary authority is in concurrence with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the findings of guilt and the said authority has imposed the major punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner would challenge the legality and correctness of Ext.P-10 Domestic Enquiry Report, dated 20.10.2012 as well as Ext.P-18 Dismissal Order, dated 31.5.2013, as can be seen from the prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) which are as follows: - _“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, orders or directions to call for the records leading upto Exhibit - P10 and Exhibit - P18 and to quash the same._ - _(ii) Declare that the charges leveled against the Petitioner as per Exhibit - P8 Memo of Charges were not proved in the domestic enquiry._ - _(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in service and to accommodate him with all service benefits in the same Post from which he was suspended and dismissed._ - _(iv) Such other reliefs that may be deemed fit to be granted by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of this case.”_ ::5:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit dated 2.10.2013 along with accompanying documents as per Exts.R-1(A) to R-1(Ae). The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 8.11.2013 by producing therewith documents as per Exts.P-19 to P-56. Later, the petitioner has filed an application as per I.A.No.12318/2017 in this Writ Petition seeking acceptance of additional documents and has thereby filed additional documents as per Exts.P-57 to P-63. 7. Heard Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Anand, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Joseph Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Both sides have been heard in extenso and they have made their rival submissions as to their respective versions and submissions. The main contention urged by Sri.Asok M.Cherian, learned counsel for the petitioner, is to the effect that the finding in Ext.P-10 enquiry report that the petitioner is guilty of the 2 factual charges as raised in Ext.P-8 is perverse and reasonable and that no reasonable disciplinary authority could have ever arrived at those conclusions on the basis of the materials on record. Per contra, Sri.K.Anand, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Joseph Sebastian, learned counsel for the respondents would urge on the basis of the specific pleadings and materials that the said contention raised by the petitioner is bereft of any merit and that sufficient and necessary ::6:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 evidence based on preponderance of probability is properly disclosed in Ext.P-10 enquiry report, which fully justifies the major punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner as per Ext.P-18 order. Both sides have extensively taken this Court to the pleadings as well as the documents and materials on record. 9. The main issue to be determined in this case is as to whether the findings of the enquiry officer in the impugned Ext.P-10 enquiry report are perverse and unreasonable and whether the consequential findings of the disciplinary authority in Ext.P-18 dismissal order are thus based on “ _no evidence_ ” and if so, whether the impugned order of dismissal deserves to be interdicted by this Court in exercise of prerogative powers conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Incidentally, it is to be noted that one of the prayers raised in this Writ Petition is for setting aside of Ext.P-10 enquiry report. It has to be borne in mind that in judicial review of disciplinary proceedings of State instrumentalities like the respondent-State Company, there is no necessity to separately consider as to whether the enquiry report in such cases is to be set aside and what is to be examined in cases like the present one involving arguments of “ _perversity_ ” and “ _no evidence_ ” is to examine whether the said contentions raised on perversity are correct and tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case and whether or ::7:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 not the impugned dismissal order is liable for interference. Even if it is held that the above dismissal of employee is found to be not tenable, there is no necessity for a writ court to separately set aside Ext.P-10 enquiry report. In other words, the issue to be considered is as to the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned Ext.P-18 dismissal order imposed on the delinquent employee. 11. The first factual allegation raised against the petitioner in Ext.P-8 memo of charges dated 3.4.2012 as contained in para 2 thereof reads as follows: _“2. You were responsible to put up all Government correspondence to MD that too in the capacity of PS to the Company Secretary as per order no. MD:85:2010 dated 31.07.2010. It would note be reasonable to believe that being an Officer with such an authority you had only typed out this letter implicating two former MDs and two Officers. This is seen as an attempt to weaken the case with regard to ceasing of Rs.50 lakhs by M/s.ARK Wood and Metals Pvt Ltd. from MCL. The letter to Government banking on just a report by an external Advocate, who does not belong to a Board Approved Panel without even consulting the Head of Personnel & Administration and appraising the Board is viewed seriously. It has brought discredit to the company and Management and is against the interest of the company._ Initially, it has to be examined as to whether or not the said charge has been duly established by the enquiry officer on the basis of preponderance of probability, which is applicable in the domestic enquiry proceedings as in the instant one. 12. It is not in dispute that indeed the materials on record would also disclose that the petitioner was the Personal Secretary to the Company Secretary of the Company for the period from 26.2.2010 to ::8:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 28.1.2011. The duties and responsibilities assigned to the petitioner in the said capacity as Personal Secretary to the Company Secretary at the relevant time as covered by the allegation in question are mentioned in Ext.P-1 Office Order dated 31.7.2010, which are as follows: _“Mr.P.Sooria Narayanan, Personal Secretary in the Office of the Company Secretary, will co-ordinate matters connected with/relating to Government, including PUC (Public Undertaking Committee)/Government Committees, Answers to LA (Legislative Assembly) Questions, C&AG (Comptroller and Auditor General), RIAB (Restructuring and Internal Audit Board), CMA (Cement Manufacturers' Association) and Public Relations, and put up details to the Managing Director for perusal/approval.”_ The above said aspect based on Ext.P-1 is also admitted in the first sentence in para 2 of Ext.P-8. The allegations pertaining to charge No.1 as included in para 2 of Ext.P-8 are not very specific and cogent and from a reading of Ext.P-10 enquiry report, it can be seen that what is meant to be conveyed by para 2 of Ext.P-8 is that the petitioner was responsible for issuance of Ext.P-6 letter dated 14.1.2011 sent by the Managing Director of the Company to the State Government and that going by his duties and responsibilities, he has given necessary inputs and materials to the Managing Director and he has prepared letter as per Ext.P-6 which was formally issued and signed by the Managing Director and thus addressed to the State Government. The gravamen of charges in para 2 of Ext.P-8 is that the petitioner was thus responsible for issuance of Ext.P-6 by the Managing Director of the Company by which the 2 former Managing Directors of the Company ::9:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 and 2 other Officers of the Company were implicated as responsible for the loss as alleged in the Government letter to which Ext.P-6 has been given as reply by the respondent-Company. The further allegation raised in para 2 of Ext.P-8 is to the effect that the said action of the petitioner in giving inputs and materials to the Managing Director so as to implicate the above 4 officers of the company to the responsibility of query of the State Government would only weaken the case of the company in the matter of withdrawal of Bank Guarantee by one of the contractors of the company who was responsible for the supply of vital raw material of fly ash required for the production of the company. Further allegation in para 2 of Ext.P-8 is to the effect that the said Ext.P6 letter was caused to be sent by the Managing Director of the Company to the Government based on the inputs and materials solely on the basis of report of the Advocate, who was not on the panel of lawyers of the company as approved by the Board and that based on the materials and the said opinion given by the said external Advocate was so used without consulting the head of Personnel & Administration wing of the company and without apprising the Board and the conduct of the petitioner in that regard in furnishing such materials, which resulted in Ext.P-6 letter is viewed seriously and it is against the interest of the company. ::10:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 13. It is the specific defence of the petitioner that in the domestic enquiry, the letter as per Ext.P-6 was conceived and dictated by the then incumbent in the post of Managing Director of the company and the petitioner as Personal Secretary in the Office of the Company Secretary, who was responsible to give necessary assistance to the Managing Director of the company as per Ext.P-1 had only typed the letter based on the said dictation of the Managing Director of the Company, etc. The said stand taken by the petitioner was found to be not correct based on the materials on record and based on the witnesses on record. This Court is not in a position to disturb the findings in Ext.P-10 report. Therefore, it is only to be taken that the letter as per Ext.P-6 was in fact drafted by the petitioner presumably based on the inputs and materials available with the company and that he would have shown the said letter to the Managing Director, which would have been approved and the same would have been formally issued and signed and later it is addressed to the State Government. But, a mere reading of Ext.P-6 letter sent by the Managing Director as addressed to the State Government would reveal that the contents of the said letter, whereby 4 officers of the company including 2 former Managing Directors were found responsible for the loss alleged by the State Government, were made only on the basis of the independent materials and inputs made available to the company by 2 independent ::11:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 experts in the field of finance (by a practising Chartered Accountant) and in law (an Advocate who was a Former District and Sessions Judge). It is clear from Ext.P-6 that the said letter has been issued by the Managing Director of the Company to the State Government in response to the query raised by the Government in letter No.13365/H2/2010/ID dated 19.11.2010, which has been produced as Ext.P-2. In Ext.P-2 letter dated 19.11.2010, Government had directed the Managing Director of the Company to furnish the following information: - _“i) Person/persons responsible for the loss of Rs.697.65 lakh sustained by the company;_ _ii) How the amount is proposed to be recovered; iii) Your concrete suggestion for uninterrupted supply of fly ash for the smooth working of the company.”_ Therefore, a reading of Ext.P-2 would make it clear that the Government has appraised that the loss to the tune of Rs.697.65 lakhs was sustained by the Company on account of the continuous non-production in the company, due to non-procurement of vital raw material like fly ash, etc. Government has also decided as per Ext.P-2 to take steps to recover the said alleged loss and the only discretion given to the company is to identify and inform the Government as to the person/persons responsible for the alleged loss and how the said amount is proposed to be recovered and also that the company should give concrete suggestion for non-procurement of fly ash for the smooth ::12:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 working of the company. After receipt of Ext.P-2 Government letter, the Managing Director of the company had sought for the comments and remarks of the Manager (Materials) and Manager (Finance) of the company so as to take further action in response to Ext.P-2 letter. The Manager (Materials) and Manager (Finance) of the company have furnished their notes. Thus, it is clear from a mere reading of Ext.P-3 dated 14.12.2010 that the said remarks and notes of the Manager (Materials) and Manager (Finance) have been produced as Anx-III & IV of Ext.P-3. The above said findings have recommended the Managing Director that the task may be entrusted to a Chartered Accountant and a legal practitioner to study the aspects regarding the alleged loss sustained by the company and the ways, means and procedures to be adopted for identifying the persons concerned for such loss and to recover such loss, etc. It appears that the alleged loss of Rs.697.65 lakhs mentioned in Ext.P-2 Government letter is on the basis of computation and data furnished by the Cost Accountant, who was engaged earlier to identify such loss caused due to stoppage of production in the company in view of non-procurement/non-availability of vital raw material like fly ash, required for the production of cement. Anx-II to Ext.P-3 is the report of the Cost Accountant in that regard. After considering the aforesaid Anxs-II, III & IV, the Managing Director of the company has issued the above said Ext.P-3 Office Order dated ::13:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 14.12.2010, whereby it was specifically directed that the author of AnxsIII and IV, viz., Manager (Marketing) and Manager (Finance) will cause to conduct a detailed study by an independent competent financial professional and Manager (Materials). It was also ordered in Ext.P-3 that legal officer of the company shall arrange the service of a competent lawyer to examine the legal implications regarding the fixation of responsibility and necessary guidance and support of the Manager (P & A) may also be availed, if required, during the course of looking into the legal implications and fixing up of the responsibility. It is in the light of these aspects that the competent authority of the company-Managing Director, has issued Ext.P-3 Office Order dated 14.12.2010 so as to take steps to respond to Ext.P-2 directives of the Government and the said decision in Ext.P-3 is on the basis of independent materials like Anx-II thereof, report of the Cost Accountant and Anxs-3 & 4 report of the Manager (Marketing) and Manager (Finance). Thereafter, in compliance with the decision taken in Ext.P-3, the Manager (Finance) of the company had engaged one Sri.K.V.Venkitaraman, a reputed qualified Chartered Accountant, so as to entrust him with responsibility regarding the financial aspects in respect of the alleged loss. It is also not in dispute that a retired District and Sessions Judge Sri.K.S.Menon, who had then resumed his legal practice was then entrusted to examine the legal implications of the ::14:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 issues regarding the persons, who are the persons responsible for the alleged loss and how to recover the said loss. The above said experts, viz., Chartered Accountant concerned and the retired District and Sessions Judge concerned, have submitted their respective reports as per Exts.P-4 & P-5. 14. In Ext.P-4, the Chartered Accountant has dealt with various aspects regarding the circumstances which led to the non-production of the company due to non-procurement/non-availability of raw material of fly ash and about the problems that existed between the company and the contractor, who was engaged for supply of the raw material, fly ash from Tamil Nadu. It is clear from a reading of Ext.P-4 that some of the grievances complained of by the said contractor could not be redressed by the company in time and his bills were not honoured in time and timely steps were not taken for clearing the loads supplied through trucks and lorries of the contractor, etc. Accordingly, it is mentioned that due to stoppage of supply of fly ash by the said contractor (M/s.A.R.K.Wood and Metal Private Limited) as stated in the report, there has been production loss and consequent loss of profit and in order to fix the responsibility for the said loss, the following points were recommended by the Chartered Accountant to be considered:- > _“1. Why MCL did not accept the full quantity if fly ash supplied by ARK as per the agreement?_ ::15:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 _2. Why were frequent instructions issued to ARK to stop supplies/reduce the quantity?_ _3. Even though there was an agreement for payment of Rs.100/per hour as detention charges for detaining the tankers beyond 8 hours, on many occasions, the tankers were held up for very long period and this was also reported in the media. Why did this happen?_ _4. If the off take of fly ash was reduced due to stoppage of production then why was there production stoppage and who is responsible for this?_ _5. It can assumed that, had the production been taking place as per the original plans, MCL would have consumed around 500 Mts of fly ash per day and there would not have been any problem in accepting the full quantity supplied by the contractor. It was because of the reduction in production of cement that the consumption of fly ash had to be reduced, leading to non-acceptance of fly ash from the contractor which in turn led to TTPS reducing the allotment to the contractor, ultimately leading to the break down of the contract.”_ ## It was also mentioned further in the penultimate succeeding paragraph on page 3 of Ext.P-4, as follows: _“The individual/individuals who were in charge of the affairs at that time have to be held responsible. Thus, unless and until we are able to pinpoint the reasons why production was stopped or reduced on the days when MCL did not accept fly ash from the contractor and fix the responsibility on the particular individuals, recovery of loss will be difficult.”_ ## The said Ext.P-4 has been concluded with the following remarks: _“Since MCL has not been able to find a reliable and suitable source for supply of good quality fly ash even after inviting open tenders and as the Hon. High Court of Kerala had directed MCL to consider the quotation submitted by ARK also, in order to ensure long term viability and profitability of MCL, the possibility of settling the dispute with ARK amicably and sourcing the fly ash from them may also be considered.”_ ## It was further remarked in Ext.P-4 by the Chartered Accountant that loss of profit has already been quantified by the Chartered Accountant and what remains to be done is to find out the cause and the persons responsible for it and this could be best done by a person with judicial ::16:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 background as it involves verification of evidence and documents appraising such evidence and fixing responsibility on individual/individuals responsible for the lapses and that a finance personnel has no role to play and a legal person with judicial background could be entrusted with the task of fixing up the responsibility of lapses. In pursuance of Ext.P-4 report dated 25.10.2012 submitted by the Chartered Accountant, it appears that the company had availed the service of a retired District and Sessions Judge, who had then resumed practice so as to entrust him with the task of recommending the modalities and legal procedures to be adopted for identifying and proceeding against the persons, who have allegedly caused the loss. This was so done as per letter dated 13.12.2010 of the company and accordingly, Sri.K.S.Menon, former District and Sessions Judge and later a practising Advocate, was so engaged and was given the task. The said letter dated 13.12.2010 of the company requesting the said legal expert to examine the issues have been so done after receipt of Ext.P-4 report dated 25.12.2010. In Ext.P-4, the Chartered Accountant had specifically opined that a legal person may be entrusted with the task of fixing the responsibility for the lapses and it is only on account of that suggestion, the company has engaged Sri.K.S.Menon, former District and Sessions Judge, as per letter dated 13.12.2010 referred to in Ext.P-5. Later, the said District and Sessions Judge, ::17:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 Sri.K.S.Menon, had submitted Ext.P-5 opinion/report along with covering letter dated 12.1.2011 addressed to the company. A reading of Ext.P-5 report of the said legal expert would make it clear that he has made thorough and indepth examination of the entire issues based on the materials made available to him and as stated about the strained relationship between the company and the Contractor (M/s.A.R.K.Wood and Metal Private Limited) since the time from 8/2008 and as to the various bottle necks occurred due to the non-procurement/non-supply of vital raw material, viz., fly ash, which was a scarce commodity in the market. Further detailed examination of the contents of Ext.P-5 is not necessary except to note that in the said report it has been clearly found that though the company has filed Original Suit, O.S.No.555/2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad, seeking for an injunction against the contractor so as not to release the Bank Guarantee, the suit itself was returned for want of jurisdiction. That instead of presenting the suit before the competent court, the company had proceeded to file Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, C.M.A.No.7/2009 before the District Court, Palakkad and by then Bank Guarantee was invoked by the contractor from the bank, which was situated in Tamil Nadu and then the CM.A.No.7/2009 had become infructuous. It has also been noted by the legal expert that though repeated offers were made by the contractor that he is prepared for reduced security deposit, the same was not ::18:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 accepted by the Company and that for reasons known to the company, further steps were not taken by the officials of the Company. After examining the materials made available to him, the former District and Sessions Judge has opined that the following 4 persons were responsible for the alleged loss of the company, etc:- - _“1. Mr.K.s.Srinivas I.A.S. Managing Director from August 2006 to 11.02.2008._ _2. Mr.Ramesh Chandra Bhanu, I.P.S. Managing Director, from 12.02.2008 to August 2008._ _3. Mr.Selvam was the head of the Department of Materials from 01.08.2006 to 10.12.2006._ _4. Mr.M.Muralidharan, Chief Engineer, Materials from 11.12.2006 to August 2006 in charge of Manager, Materials.”_ It was also opined by him that the officials concerned may be called upon to give their explanation as to the delayed payment of bills submitted by the contractor and the delay caused in unloading the vehicles and the reason for not affording an opportunity to the contractor for a reasonable settlement of the issues. It was also opined that why no replies were given to the contractor for the various communications submitted by the contractor (M/s.A.R.K.Wood and Metal Private Limited) to the company, and why no opportunity was given for a personal hearing, etc. Thus, it can be seen from the above said materials, most importantly, Exts.P-3, P-4 and P-5, that it was the competent authority of the company, who had taken decision to respond to Ext.P-2 directives of the Government by initially entrusting the task to the Manager ::19:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 (Materials) and Manager (Finance) to give their reports and the said officials of the company had opined that services of experts in financial and legal may be availed for dealing with the task. Thereupon, the Manager (Finance) had decided to engage the services of Chartered Accountant as a financial expert as stated hereinabove, who has submitted Ext.P-4 report. It was based on Ext.P-4 report dated 25.12.2010 of the Chartered Accountant, who had recommended to entrust the task to a legal person with a judicial background, that the Managing Director of the Company had issued letter dated 30.12.2010 so as to avail the services of Sri.K.S.Menon, former District and Sessions Judge and who was then a legal practitioner. The said legal expert, who was a former District and Sessions Judge, had submitted a detailed report as per Ext.P-5 as stated hereinabove. It is to be noted that inputs like the one in Exts.P-3, P-4 & P-5 accompanying the said materials that it was apprised to the company that the above said 4 persons concerned including the 2 former Managing Director of the company are responsible for the alleged loss. These factual aspects are not in any manner disputed by the respondent company. If that be so, it could be taken for granted that the version of the respondentcompany that it was the petitioner, who had drafted the letter as per Ext.P-6, which was later formally issued and signed by the Managing Director, is correct. The petitioner's case that he has only done the ::20:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 limited task of taking down dictation from the Managing Director and had typed Ext.P-6 based on the dictation is not fully correct. Still, it can be seen that the petitioner has drafted Ext.P-6 letter only on the basis of inputs and materials made available by the company by independent sources and materials by the company as can be seen from Exts.P-3, P- 4 & P-5 as well as the documents accompanying the said materials. By no stretch of imagination could it be contended that the petitioner has made any falsification while drafting the letter. It can only be seen from a mere perusal of the above said materials like Exts.P-3 to P-5 that the petitioner has neither omitted nor added any crucial aspects from Exts.P-3 to P-5 while drafting the letter as per Ext.P-6. Other materials and inputs are as discernible from Exts.P-3 to P-5 and documents accompanying them. Though both sides have made extensive submissions, this Court has repeatedly queried the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-company as to whether the respondent-company has any such case and if so, to establish as to how the petitioner has added or deleted while preparing Ext.P-6 letter over and above the materials and inputs available from Exts.P-3 to P-5. The respondent has been unable to point out any such aspects before this Court. A perusal of the available pleadings in this case as well as the various documents made available before this Court will also concretely point out that the petitioner has neither added nor deleted ::21:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 anything while preparing Ext.P-6 letter over and above the materials and inputs available in Exts.P-3 to P-5, etc. If on the other hand, the petitioner had not named any of the 4 officials mentioned in Ext.P-5 report submitted by the former District and Sessions Judge, while preparing Ext.P-6 letter and that itself would have constituted a misconduct on the part of the petitioner for not disclosing those aspects to the Managing Director. In these circumstances, it is only to be held that even if the allegations in para 2 of Ext.P-3 memo of charges are taken as it is, still it cannot be said that there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner and this is all the more so, in view of the indisputable material emanating from Exts.P-3 to P-5 and documents accompanying therefrom. 15. The further allegation in the last sentence of para 2 of Ext.P-8 is regarding placing reliance just on a report of the external Advocate, who does not belong to the panel of lawyers approved by the Board of Directors of the Company and without consulting the P&A (Manager), etc., cannot be said to be commission of any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The decision taken in Ext.P-3 based on the recommendation of the Manager (Marketing) & Manager (Finance) to engage a financial expert and legal expert was approved by the Managing Director of the company. Thereupon, as per Ext.P-3, the Manager (Finance) was directed to conduct a detailed study on the ::22:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 financial aspects of the issues by an independent competent financial professional, etc., and the legal officer was requested to arrange service of the lawyer to look into the legal implications including fixation of liability and as per Ext.P-3 the Manager (Finance) had decided to engage the services of a Chartered Accountant as an independent financial expert. There is no dispute that the said Chartered Accountant is a qualified and reputed professional and no contra case is set up by the management in that regard. It was the Chartered Accountant, who has recommended in Ext.P-4 report that the entire issue could be found out by appointing a legal person having judicial background. The said opinion of the Chartered Accountant in Ext.P-4 report has not been impeached by the respondent-management in accordance with law. In view of the findings emanating in this case based on the report of the former District & Sessions Judge as well as the Chartered Accountant, the company has allegedly sustained a loss of profits to the tune of Rs.697.65 lakhs due to non-availability of raw material fly ash and stoppage of production, etc. Therefore, it was only wise and prudent that independent legal expert opinion was obtained and it was only in view of those aspects, that the Chartered Accountant has wisely and prudently opined to engage a legal expert, who is having judicial background. It would have been unprudent to entrust this delicate task to an Advocate, who is already included in the panel of lawyers ::23:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 approved by the Board of Directors. It is in view of these aspects of the matter that the independent service of an expert, who is having a judicial background was found to be more suited for that sensitive task. At any rate, no reasonable authority can state that the recommendations of the Chartered Accountant in that regard are perverse and unreasonable. It is on the basis of recommendations of Ext.P-5 report dated 25.12.2010 that the Managing Director of the Company had issued letter dated 13.12.2010 whereby Sri.K.S.Menon, former District and Sessions Judge was requested to take up the responsibility of identifying the modalities and procedures to identify the persons who are responsible for the alleged loss. There is not even a whisper either in the memo of charges or in the evidence adduced by the company that the said independent legal expert Sri.K.S.Menon, former District & Sessions Judge, is not having the legal experience or that he does not have judicial background. The only allegation raised in Ext.P-8 is that Sri.K.S.Menon, was not included in the panel of lawyers as approved by the Board of Directors of the Company. 16. There is also an allegation in the concluding part of para 2 of Ext.P-8 memo of charges that the action in question was taken without apprising the Board of Directors of the Company and the same is viewed seriously. It is not very clear from a reading of para 2 of Ext.P8 as to what exactly that is sought to the conveyed therein. It could be ::24:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 that Ext.P-6 letter was issued based on Exts.P-4 & P-5 reports without apprising the Board of Directors or it could be that the legal expert (retired District & Sessions Judge) was engaged, who is not in the panel of lawyers approved by the Board of Directors and without consulting and without apprising the Board of Directors. Either way it can only be stated by this Court that primarily the decision in that regard whether or not the head of P&A and Board is to be constituted before engaging a retired District & Sessions Judge or whether Ext.P-6 letter should be issued only after consultation with the Board of Directors are all matters in the nature of executive action which has to be primarily done by the Chief Executive Officer concerned, viz., the Managing Director. Going by the specific duties and responsibilities assigned to the petitioner, who was only a Personal Secretary in the Office of the Company Secretary as has been assigned in Ext.P-1, it cannot be said that it was primarily the duty of the petitioner to take action in that regard. At best, the petitioner could have drafted the letter and could have even brought to the notice of the Managing Director concerned about those aspects. But whether an independent legal expert, who is having a judicial background should be appointed as recommended by the Chartered Accountant in Ext.P-4 report is a matter which has to be primarily rendered by the Managing Director, in the exigencies of situation and this is all the more so, as the matter warranted emergent action in view ::25:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 of the specific query sought for by the Government as per Ext.P-2. If in this process, the Managing Director has dispensed with the consultation of a subordinate official like the Manager (P&A) or had not apprised the Board of Directors of the Company, then the same cannot be said to be in any manner remotely constituted misconduct on the part of the petitioner, who was only holding the responsibility as Personal Secretary in the Office of the Company Secretary. Therefore, it is to be held that the findings of the disciplinary officer in Ext.P-10 and the corresponding findings of the disciplinary authority in Ext.P-18 regarding the aspects covered by para 2 of Ext.P-8 memo of charges are perverse and unreasonable, which no reasonable enquiry authority or disciplinary authority could have arrived at, if properly instructed on law and facts governing the field, could have taken. 17. Further, the allegation is that no steps were taken to consult with the P&A wing. The basic decision taken as per Ext.P-3, as can be seen from item No.2 on the penultimate paragraph on page 2 of Ext.P-3 is that service of a competent lawyer may be engaged to look into the legal implications including fixation of responsibility and necessary guidance and support of Manager (P & A), may be availed, if required, during the course of looking into the legal implications and fixing up the liability. The only recommendation therein was that the service of Manager (P & A) may be availed, if required. Subsequent decision was ::26:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 taken by the Managing Director on the basis of Ext.P-4 report, that Ext.P-5 report of the legal expert was obtained. There is no case set up either in the impugned memo of charges or in the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry report or in any other materials which would show that the incumbent holding the charge of Manager (P&A) was a legally qualified person or that he was equipped to assess the legal aspects like the one entrusted to Sri.K.S.Menon. At any rate, since a retired District and Sessions Judge has been entrusted with the said responsibility, it would only be appropriate that he is permitted to execute his responsibility without any involvement of the officials of the company to fin out the erring officials of the company and therefore the action on the part of the retired District and Sessions Judge in not consulting with the Manager (P&A) or action of the Managing Director in not consulting with the Manager (P&A) and acting upon Ext.P-5 report submitted by the retired District and Sessions Judge cannot be said to be improper. At any rate, the said omission in not consulting with Manager (P&A) in the above said process cannot be said to be alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner was obliged to consult with the Manager (P&A) before drafting Ext.P-6 letter so as to name the 4 officers, who have been named in Ext.P-5 report of the former District and Sessions Judge. Therefore, it cannot be said that the misconduct on the part of ::27:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 the petitioner has been disclosed against the petitioner in view of the above said aspects discernible from Ext.P-8 memo of charges and this is all the more so, in view of the above said materials mentioned hereinabove and materials produced in the domestic enquiry proceedings. In view of these aspects, it is only to be held that the findings in Ext.P-10 enquiry proceedings that the petitioner is found to be guilty of charges in view of the memo of charges as per Ext.P-8 are highly perverse and unreasonable and that no reasonable enquiry authority, who is properly instructed on law and facts would have come to such a conclusion. In view of these reasons, it is only to be held that the consequential findings in Ext.P-18 dismissal order that the petitioner is guilty of the factual allegations raised in para 2 of Ext.P-8 memo of charges are also thus unreasonable and perverse and amount to “ _Wednesbury_ ” unreasonableness. In view of these aspects, the said findings of the disciplinary authority in the Ext.P-18 dismissal order are only to the interfered in the judicial review proceedings. 18. In the light of these aspects, this Court is constrained to hold that the specific factual allegations raised in para 2 of Ext.P-8 memo of charges are perverse and unreasonable and are based on " _no evidence_ " and amount to “ _Wednesbury_ ” unreasonableness. 19. Now the second factual allegation raised against the petitioner as referred to in paragraph-3 of the impugned Ext.P-8 memo ::28:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 ## of charges has to be considered. In the said second charge as contained in paragraph 3 thereof reads as follows : _“3. Moreover, just after reporting directly to MD that too in the capacity of Personnel Secretary to Company Secretary, you have not appraised the Government directives on limit for sanctioning investments to the MD and this led to release of Letter of Intent to M/s.Himachal Environmental Engineering Co. Ltd. without Board and Government approval for the project. This is a willful negligence of duty especially when certain specific rules of the Company Secretary were assigned to you vide Office Order No.MD:85:2010 DT 31.7.2010. It is to be noted that the escalation of cost of RABH Project was consequent to the Capital Sub Committee Meeting of the Board on 27.7.2010. The Letter of Intent was issued on 4.8.2010 without the approval of the Board or Government.”_ The specific allegation and charge raised in paragraph-3 of Ext.P-8 is to the effect that the petitioner, who was assigned the specific duty of reporting direction to the M.D. in his capacity as the Personal Secretary in the office of the Company Secretary as per Ext.P-1, had not apprised about the Government directives governing the field on the limit of sanctioning investments that can be taken by the M.D. of the Company and that this has led to the release of the letter of intent to M/s.Himachal Environmental Engineering Company Ltd., without the approval of the Board of Directors of the Company and without the approval of the State Government for the said project. It is relevant to note that it is common ground that the Government directives referred to therein are Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) No.103/2010/ID dated 30.4.2010. In this context, it is also relevant to note that it is also common ground of the parties that prior to the issuance of Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) dated ::29:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 30.4.2010, the norm that governed the field in relation to the limitations on the power to incur expenditure, in that regard was contained in Ext.R1-(P) (which is contained in page-103 of the counter affidavit). Ext.R1-(P) is the State Government communication issued specifically to the respondent-Malabar Cements Ltd. as per Government letter No.10632/H2/1998/ID dated 14.8.1998, which reads as follows : _“No.10632/H2/98/ID_ _Industries (H) Department Thiruvananthapuram Dated 14.8.1998_ _From_ _The Secretary to Government_ _To_ _The Managing Director Malabar Cements Limited Walayar, Palakkad._ _Sir,_ _Sub:- Capital expenditure Budget of Malabar Cements Limited for 98-99 - Request for Government approval - regarding._ _Ref:- Your letter No.FIN/153/98/3615 dated 4.4.98._ _With reference to the letter cited I am to inform you as under :_ - _(i) Capital Budget as such does not require the approval of Government._ - _(ii) All Projects/Schemes involving diversification expansion or proposals costing above 5% of the Gross fixed assets have to be referred to Government for approval._ - _(iii) Individual items of Capital Expenditure including those for replacement/modernisation will have to be approved by the Board of Directors of the Company. However those items costing Rs.25 lakhs will have to be apprised by a subcommittee of the Board in which a Government representative should be a Member only such individual items of expenditure costing above 5% of the Gross fixed Assets need be approved by the Government._ - _(iv) The Company may take steps to amend its articles of Association on these lines._ ## _Yours faithfully_ _Santha John Deputy Secretary for Secretary to Government”_ ::30:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 As per clause (iii) of Ext.R1-(P) Government letter dated 14.8.1998, individual items of capital expenditure including those for replacement/modernisation will have to be approved by the Board of Directors of the Company. However, those items costing Rs.25 lakhs will have to be assessed by a subcommittee of the Board in which a Government representative should be a member and only such individual items of expenditure costing above 5% of the gross fixed assets need be approved by the Government. It appears that the said norm as per Ext.R1(P) dated 14.8.1998 has been subsequently altered at the instance of the State Government as per Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) No103/2010/ID dated 30.4.2010 (see page 112 of the reply affidavit of the petitioner). A mere perusal of Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) dated 30.4.2010 would show that it is a Government Order issued by the State Government which regulates the subject concerned in respect of all public sector undertaking of the State Government. It is specifically stipulated in clause (vi) of Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) dated 30.4.2010 as follows : > _“vi) The profit making PSUs can invest 20% of their net worth for their own capital addition with the approval of their Board and the approval of administrative department in Govt.”_ The profit making PSUs can invest 20% of the net worth for their own capital addition with the approval of their Board and approval of the administrative department in Government. It is a case of the respondent ::31:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 that there was a proposal to instal an effective pollution control system, called as Reverse Air Bag House (RBAH) for controlling the air pollution in the cement producing factory at Valayar of the respondent Company and that as per Ext.P-4 dated 25.12.2010, the Board had granted approval for incurring expenditure in that regard up to Rs.5.5 Crores. It appears that the case of the respondent more so particularly from Ext.R-1 (O) report dated 23.3.2012 that as on 31.3.2010, the gross fixed asset of the Company was Rs.157.51 Crores and 5% of the gross fixed assets came to Rs.7.9 crores. That in view of Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) dated 30.4.2010, proposal for expenditure up to 20% of the net worth has to be referred to the Government for approval and that net worth as on 31.3.2010 was Rs.162.7 Crores and the project in question was not referred to the Government for their approval. That the Company had decided to issue letter of intent to the bidder concerned to purchase the said RBAH equipment for a prize of Rs.14.73 Crores and letter of intent in that regard was issued by the respondent Company as per Ext.P-51 dated 4.8.2010. It is the allegation of the respondent in paragraph-3 of Ext.P-8 that the petitioner in his capacity as the Personal Secretary in the office of the Company Secretary had not apprised the Managing Director about the Government directives on financial limit for sanctioning of investment which is contained in Ext.P-33 and that this has led to the issuance of Ext.P-51 letter of intent dated 4.8.2010 and ::32:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 that this action of the petitioner in not apprising the Managing Director about Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) amounts to willful negligence of the duties assigned to him as per Ext.P-1. It is also specifically stated in the concluding part of paragraph-3 of Ext.P-8 that the escalation of cost of RABH project was consequent to the decision of the Capital SubCommittee meeting of the Board held on 27.7.2010 and that this led to the issuance of Ext.P-51 letter of intent dated 4.8.2010 without the approval of the Board and that of the Government. Coming to these allegations it is the common ground of both the parties that Ext.P-48 is the minutes of the abovesaid decision of the Capital Sub-Committee of the Board of Directors taken on 27.7.2010 as referred to above and that Ext.P-51 is the letter of intent dated 4.8.2010, for purchase of RBAH as stated above. It can be seen from a mere reading of Ext.P-48 minutes of the decision of the Capital Sub-Committee of the Board of Directors rendered on 27.7.2010 (See Page No.178 of the reply affidavit of the petitioner) that the norm in Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) No.103/2010/ID dated 30.4.2010 has been specifically and explicitly referred to under the heading “R _ecommendation of the Committee_ ” given on internal page-5 of Ext.P-48 (see page 182 of the reply affidavit). The said relevant part of the recommendation of the committee reads as follows : _“Based on the revised offers received, the Committee recommended placement of order on M/s.Himachal Environmental Engineering Company Private Limited, New Delhi at a cost of Rs.14,73,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Crore,_ ::33:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 _Seventy three Lakh only) excluding all taxes and duties in line with the Government Order (MS) No.103/2010/ID dt.30.4.2010.”_ Based on the revised offers received, the Committee recommended placement of order on M/s.Himachal Environmental Engineering Company Private Ltd., New Delhi, at a cost of Rs.14,73,00,000/(Rupees Fourteen Crores, Seventy three lakhs only) excluding all taxes and duties in line with Government Order (M.S.)No.103/2010/ID dated 30.4.2010). Therefore, the existence of the new norm as per Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) dated 30.4.2010, which had by then come into force at the time of the convening of the Capital Sub-Committee meeting of the Board of Directors on 27.7.2010, has been duly brought to the notice of the members of the Sub-Committee which also consists of the Managing Director of the Company. The genuineness of Ext.P-48 minutes dated 27.7.2010 is not even remotely disputed by the respondent management. On the other hand, the concluding portion of paragraph-3 of Ext.P-8 memo of charges specifically refers to Ext.P-48 minutes dated 27.7.2010. Ext.P-48 is an undisputed document. The said undisputed document itself discloses that Ext.P-33 G.O. (M.S).No.103/2010/ID dated 30.4.2010 has been brought to the notice of the committee concerned, which led to the issuance of Ext.P-51 letter of intent dated 4.8.2010. It is not also under dispute in any manner that Ext.P-51 letter of intent dated 4.8.2010 has been issued on ::34:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 the basis of the decision of the Capital Sub-Committee as per Ext.P-48 dated 27.7.2010. Reference No.3 of Ext.P-51 letter of intent dated 4.8.2010 also specifically refers to the decision of the Capital SubCommittee taken on 27.7.2010 as per Ext.P-48. Therefore, in the teeth of these undisputed documents, it cannot be maintained for a minute that the existence of Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S).No.103/2010/ID, which was a new norm issued on 30.4.2010 in supersession of the old norm as per Ext.R1-(P) dated 14.8.1998, was duly brought to the notice of the Capital Sub-Committee at the time of taking a decision on 27.7.2010. 19. In the light of these aspects, it is clear like day light from the documents which are clearly admitted by both sides, more so particularly the respondent, that the existence of the new norm as per Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) dated No.30.4.2010 was duly brought to the notice of not only the Managing Director, but also all the members of the Capital Sub-Committee. The only charge in paragraph-3 of Ext.P-8, which forms part of the second allegation against the petitioner, is that he in his capacity as Personal Secretary in the office of the Company Secretary had not apprised the Managing Director about the existence of Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) dated 30.4.2010 before the rendering of the decision as per Ext.P-48 dated 27.7.2010. Therefore, the entire substratum of the said allegation falls to the ground. If in spite of the new norm as per Ext.P-33 G.O.(M.S.) dated 30.4.2010, the competent ::35:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 Sub-Committee of the Company had not sought for sanction of the Board of Directors of the Company and that of the Government before the issuance of Ext.P-51 letter of intent, those are all matters for which only the competent authorities concerned, who mainly comprise of the members of the Sub-committee, could be blamed in that regard. The non-securing of the approval of the Board of Directors of the Company and that of the State Government, before the rendering of Ext.P-48 and Ext.P-51, cannot be alleged as a misconduct on the part of the petitioner who was only then working as Personal Secretary in the office of the Company Secretary. The respondents have no case that the petitioner in his capacity as Personal Secretary in the office of the Company Secretary was also under the bounden obligation as part of his limited duties and functions to have secured the approval of the Board of Directors and the State Government before the issuance of Ext.P-48 and Ext.P-51. Therefore, there is no necessity for any further examination of the issues in that regard. It is also not in dispute that later the Board of Directors of the Company had given its ratification in relation to the decision in Ext.P-48 and Ext.P-51, even though the approval of the State Government in that regard was not secured. In the light of these aspects, this Court has no hesitation to hold that no reasonable enquiry authority or disciplinary authority who has been properly instructed on the facts and law governing the field, could have ::36:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 ever taken a decision as the one in Ext.P-10 and Ext.P-18 to find that the petitioner is guilty of the factual charges and allegations raised in paragraph-3 of Ext.P-8. So the impugned dismissal order at Ext.P-18 is thus tainted by perversity and unreasonableness. In the light of these aspects, the impugned proceedings at Ext.P-18 are liable to be interfered with in exercise of the prerogative powers of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. There is yet another aspect which is worthy of mention in this context. The two allegations contained in paragraph-2 and paragraph-3 of Ext.P-8 are mainly that the petitioner has not apprised certain aspects to the then Managing Director of the Company. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by both sides that one Sri.Sundaramoorthy was the Managing Director of the Company at the relevant time in respect of the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P-8. It is also not in dispute that the said Sundaramoorthy, the then Managing Director, has never been cited or examined as a management's witness in this case as can be seen from Ext.P-10 domestic enquiry report. Sri.Sundaramoorthy, the then Managing Director, was the best person to have given evidence before the domestic enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of any of the aspects covered in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P-8. For reasons which are known only to the respondent management, they have not chosen ::37:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 to adduce evidence of that person. It is now urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Company that Sri.Sundaramoorthy had demitted the office as Managing Director of the Company at the time of the domestic enquiry proceedings and that his service is not available in the Company at that time. It is indeed indisputable that Sri.Sundaramoorthy, the then Managing Director, is a crucial witness in this case having regard to the aspects covered in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P-8 memo of charges. 21. The then Managing Director was an official of high rank and it is only prudent to infer that such a high ranking official would have certainly co-operated with the domestic enquiry of the respondent Company in order to throw light on the allegations which are occurred during the time when he was the Managing Director of the Company. But, there was no attempt whatsoever on the part of the respondent management to even cite and examine the said witness. If in a case where such a witness was cited and he had not co-operated with domestic enquiry in spite of issuance of notice etc., then possibly the respondent Company could have contended that despite the due diligence, they could not secure the presence of the witness to depose about those crucial and relevant aspects of the matter. Therefore, the non-citing and non-examination of the said crucial witness, is also to be seriously viewed in this matter, as the said witness could have easily ::38:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 thrown light about various relevant aspects in relation to the allegations mentioned herein above. Therefore, this is also an aspect which would seriously vitiate the conduct in view of the domestic enquiry proceedings which led to Ext.P-18. At least the respondent management could have recorded the version of the said Managing Director by conducting an effective preliminary enquiry in that regard before the initiation of Ext.P-8. 22. Sri.K.Anand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Company, would point out that the petitioner’s service records are not without any blemishes and that earlier as per Ext.-R1(B) proceedings, he was proceeded departmentally in respect of the allegations that he was involved in spirit smuggling during lorry transportation of the raw materials to the factory premises of the Company and that Ext.-R1(B) penalty order has been issued on 3.4.2009 whereby the petitioner was demoted from the higher post of Executive Secretary to the lower post of Personal Secretary. That in respect of the same allegations relating to the spirit smuggling, the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused in a criminal case. Sri.Asok.M.Cherian , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that these aspects and allegations are not in any manner relevant and germane for deciding on the legality or otherwise of the impugned Ext.P-18 proceedings as only two specific factual charges have been raised against the petitioner in Ext.P-8. ::39:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 Further, he would point out that he has no specific instruction regarding the new allegations stated herein above. That the abovesaid demotion order was subsequently superseded by Ext.R-1 (C) order whereby he was retained to the previous position and that this clearly shows that the respondent management was convinced about the untenablility of the allegations which led to Ext.R-1(B). This Court need not detain its consideration to these aspects any longer, as these matters are not really relevant and germane regarding the matters in Ext.P-8 and Ext.P-18. Further the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Company would state that as per Exts.R1-(A) and (B), the then Company Secretary Sri.Sasindran (who later committed suicide on 24.1.2011) has alleged that the petitioner has created various problems in the Company which have also affected him officially. However, it is pointed out by Sri.Asok.M.Cherian, learned counsel for the petitioner that even as per the pleadings of the respondent, the abovesaid Sri.Sasindran had exonerated the petitioner of the abovesaid allegations as can be seen from the documents produced. That even the document produced by none other than the respondent herein as per Ext.R-1(n) (penultimate paragraph thereof) revelas that Sri.Sasindran had later given a letter dated 9.9.2010 praising the petitioner and had requested to exonerate the petitioner from all such allegations, etc. ::40:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 23. Having regard to the issues raised in this case, this Court is of the view that there is no necessity to examine the tenability or otherwise of the rival contentions in this regard as these are not really relevant and germane for the matters in respect of the impugned proceedings. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned dismissal order Ext.-P18 dated 31.5.2013 is liable to be interfered with in this writ proceedings. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of this W.P.(C), the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30.9.2017. Therefore, there is no question of the petitioner enjoying the benefit of actual reinstatement in service. 24. Sri.K.Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Company would submit that in case this Court is inclined to overrule the contentions of the respondent, then this Court may not order back wages or full back wages to the petitioner, in view of the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision as in _**Banshi Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and another,**_ reported in (2007) 1 SCC 324. It is now well established that even if the competent court holds that the penalty of termination/dismissal from service is illegal and improper, even then the rendering of directions for full back wages is not automatic and it is to be adjudged and evaluated carefully having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formulae is ::41:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 available as a matter of universal application. In the instant case, the impugned order of dismissal is liable to be interfered with not on the ground of technical violation of principle of natural justice. The petitioner has not raised any contention that the impugned domestic enquiry proceedings has been vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice in any manner. The main reasoning on the basis of which this Court has been constrained to hold that the impugned proceedings are illegal and ultravires is that the findings of the enquiry officer in the disciplinary authority are tainted by perversity and unreasonableness, etc. In other words, this Court is of the considered view that those impugned findings are tainted by perversity and unreasonableness as it is based on _“no legally acceptable evidence and materials”_ . 25. In such a case, more particularly in the facts of this case, it will be really unfair and unjust, if this Court denies him back wages. The impugned dismissal order of Ext.P18 has been issued on 31.5.2013 and the petitioner has challenged the same by filing the instant Writ Petition (Civil) as early as on 17.6.2013. As a matter of fact, it cannot be alleged by anyone that there has been any delay on the part of the petitioner in instituting the present writ proceedings and it is only to be held that the petitioner has taken steps to challenge the impugned proceedings diligently and with all expedition. In the facts of this case, ::42:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 this Court is constrained to take the view that the petitioner should be granted full back wages and all consequential benefits for the period he has been kept outside duty. It has also been held that in view of the abovesaid findings that the impugned proceedings have been vitiated by perversity and unreasonableness, it is only to be held that the petitioner is entitled for full back wages for the period which he has been kept outside service from the date of issuance of Ext.-P8 suspension order dated 3.4.2012 up to his date of superannuation from service on 30.9.2017. In the light of the indisputable materials like Exts.P3, P4, P5 and P6 and the documents accompanying them as well as Ext.P-48, Ext.P-51, etc., it is only to be held that the specific factual charges and allegations raised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Ext.P-8 memo of charges does not as a matter of fact disclose any misconduct on the part of the petitioner in his capacity as an official of the Company. The petitioner is also entitled for continued service with all service benefits for the abovesaid period in question. Ext.-P18 dismissal order dated 31.5.2013 is thus set aside. The respondent will issue orders notionally reinstating the petitioner and granting all consequential benefits to the petitioner for the abovesaid period in the light of the abovesaid findings and directions mentioned herein above. Action in this regard should be duly completed by the respondent and all consequential monetary benefits should also be disbursed to the petitioner in that regard within two months from the ::43:: W.P.(C).No.15405 Of 2013 date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. As the petitioner has also reached the superannuation age in September 2017, all duly admissible terminal benefits should also be granted to the petitioner without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 to 3 months, from the expiry of the abovesaid period. While computing the terminal benefits of the petitioner, the last pay of the petitioner should be correctly and properly fixed taking into note of the findings and directions made by this Court herein above. In case the respondent does not pay the consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner for the abovesaid period as directed herein above within the abovesaid period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, then the respondent will be liable to pay interest thereon on such amounts @ 8% per annum from the date of expiry of three months from the issuance of certified copy of this judgment up to such date of actual payment. With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/csl _// True copy // P.A to Judge//_