Smt. M.K. Ramani v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2012/13TH ASHADHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 22438 of 2010 (D)** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** - **------------------** **SMT.M.K.RAMANI,W/O.RAVEENDRAN, SECRETARY,POOMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. REGD.NO.R-172,P.O.ARIPALAM,THRISSUR-680 688 (SINCE DISMISSED/COMPULSORY RETIREMENT) RESIDING AT VELAPARAMBIL HOUSE,VALLIVATTOM P.O. VIA. KONATHUKUNNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN** ## **SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **----------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR.** **3. POOMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., REGD. NO. R - 172, P.O.ARIPALAM, THRISSUR-680 688.** **4. THE BOARD OF OF DIRECTORS, POOMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. REGD. NO. R - 172, P.O.ARIPALAM, THRISSUR-680 688.** **5. T.N.MADHU, ADVOCATE, CHERAYIL HOUSE, COMBARA, IRINJALAKUDA THRISSUR DISTRICT, (DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER POOMANGALAM SERVICE, CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO. R - 172 P.O.ARIPALAM, THRISSUR-680 688).** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. M.P. SHEEBA** **R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI BY ADV. SRI.T.R.SADEESAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** ## **WP(C).No. 22438 of 2010 (D)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Rt) NO.126/10/CO-OP DT 27/2/2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 13/11/1984.** **EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT 31.5.96.** - **EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT. 29/6/96. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT 7/10/1998.** - **EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 12/10/1998** - **EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF SUPSPENSION DT 15/1/1999. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DT 8/6/1999 EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM REPLY DT 21.6.1999.** - **EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.CRP 4040/99 DT 15/2/2001.** - **EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT 26/2/2001** - **EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF ENVELOPE** - **EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL DT 25/2/2002. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN OP NO.4035/02 DT 9/4/02.** - **EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF ORDER 4/7/02 BY THE BOARD IN APPEAL.** - **EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT 25/7/2002** - **EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.CRP 7074/03 DT 17/5/2004. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.16417/03 DT 23/12/04.** - **EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.7074/03 DT 10/4/2006.** - **EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DT 7/4/2009 IN W.A. 361/06. EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DT 9/6/09 BEFORE R1. EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL STATEMENT DT 20/12/2009.** ## **WP(C).No. 22438 of 2010 (D)** ## **EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DT 19/2/2001.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.SEC/1/10-11 DT 5/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATE 26/2/2002 IN OP NO.5699/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXT.R3(c): COPY JUDGMENT DT 12/10/2011 IN WPC NO.24911/001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **BP** **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** ## **------------------------W.P.(C)No.22438 of 2010 --------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of July, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the third respondent co-operative society on 1.3.1983 on a temporary basis. She was regularised in service with effect from 1.3.1984. While the third respondent society was being administered by the Administrator appointed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thrissur, the petitioner issued Ext.P3 certificate dated 31.5.1996 to Smt.Bindu certifying that she had worked in the society for three years and that her service was satisfactory. She had likewise issued Ext.P4 certificate dated 29.6.1996 to Sri.Paramu certifying that he had worked as Salesman in the society for a period of seven years and that his service was satisfactory. Relying on the said certificates, Smt.Bindu and Sri.Paramu filed O.P.No.8814 of 1998 in this Court seeking regularisation in service. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thrissur to consider their grievances and take an appropriate decision in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. When the Managing Committee of the third respondent WPC No.22438/2010 2 society came to know of Exts.P3 and P4 certificates, it resolved on 12.9.1998 to seek an explanation from the petitioner as regards the circumstances in which the said certificates were issued. Pursuant thereto, the President of the third respondent society issued Ext.P5 memo dated 7.10.1998 calling upon the petitioner to explain the reason why Exts.P3 and P4 certificates were issued to Smt.Bindu and Sri.Paramu. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply dated 12.10.1998 wherein she took the stand that the said certificates were issued with reference to the records available in the society. She also stated that she had only issued certificates with reference to the documents available with her and that as a result thereof, the bank is not put to any loss. She also stated that Sri.Paramu is still working on commission basis in the bank and Smt.Bindu left employment in July 1997. Later, by Ext.P7 order dated 15.1.1999, the President of the third respondent society placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 16.1.1999 pending disciplinary enquiry. 3. Pursuant thereto, the sub-committee of the third respondent society issued Ext.P8 memo of charges levelling 14 allegations against the petitioner. She was called upon to submit her written statement of defence within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo of charges. A copy of the memo of charges was served on the petitioner WPC No.22438/2010 3 on 16.6.1999. She thereafter submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 21.6.1999 addressed to the members of the sub-committee wherein she denied the charges levelled against her and also requested for copies of all the relevant documents and records. She also mentioned therein that she has filed a petition under rule 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules for the supply of certified copies of the relevant documents and records. 4. The petitioner thereafter moved the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies by filing a representation complaining that copies of documents which have been applied for under rule 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules have not been furnished. She thereafter filed O.P No.27124 of 1999 in this Court. By judgment delivered on 2.11.1999, this Court disposed of O.P.No.27124 of 1999 with a direction to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thrissur to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and to take an appropriate decision thereon without delay. This Court also directed that till a decision is taken by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the enquiry should not be proceeded with. By Ext.P10 order passed on 15.2.2001, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies rejected the petitioner's request. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the third respondent society thereafter submitted his report on 19.2.2011. WPC No.22438/2010 4 5. After the enquiry report was received, the sub-committee of the third respondent society issued Ext.P11 show cause notice dated 26.2.2011 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed on her. Along with the show cause notice, a copy of Ext.P23 report was also furnished. The petitioner was given seven days time from the date of receipt of the show cause notice to submit her reply. The petitioner submitted her reply to Ext.P11 show cause notice only on 20.2.2002. The sub-committee of the third respondent society thereafter passed Ext.P13 order dated 25.2.2002 dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 15.1.1999, the date of the order of suspension. Aggrieved by Ext.P13 order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Managing Committee of the third respondent society. By Ext.P15 order passed on 4.7.2002, the Managing Committee dismissed the appeal. However, the Managing Committee modified the punishment as compulsory retirement with effect from the date of the order of suspension. The petitioner thereupon moved the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies by filing Ext.P16 representation dated 25.7.2002 under rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. By Ext.P17 order passed on 17.5.2004, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies allowed the petition, set aside Exts.P13 and P15 orders and WPC No.22438/2010 5 held that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service with back wages and all service benefits. 6. The third respondent society thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.16417 of 2004 in this Court. By Ext.P18 judgment delivered on 23.12.2004, a learned single Judge of this Court set aside Ext.P17 order and directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to reconsider the matter. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies accordingly reconsidered the matter and passed Ext.P19 order dated 10.4.2006 rejecting Ext.P16 petition filed by the petitioner under rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. It appears, in the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed W.A.No.361 of 2006 and the third respondent society had filed W.A.No.553 of 2006 challenging Ext.P18 judgment of the learned single Judge. It was while the said writ appeals were pending, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed Ext.P19 order dated 10.4.2006. When the writ appeals came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 7.4.2009, the Division Bench held that as a revised order has been passed in the matter, the petitioner should work out her remedies against that order in other appropriate proceedings. The Division Bench clarified that the order of compulsory retirement will take effect only from the date of Ext.P13 order namely 25.2.2002. WPC No.22438/2010 6 7. Aggrieved by Ext.P19 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P21 appeal before the Government. By Ext.P1 order passed on 27.2.2010, the Government rejected the appeal and upheld Ext.P13 and P15 orders. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Government, Ext.P13 order passed by the subcommittee of the third respondent society, Ext.P15 order passed by the Manging Committee on appeal, Ext.P19 order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and Ext.P23 enquiry report. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate her in service with back wages. The principal contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that no opportunity was afforded to her to defend the allegations levelled against her and therefore, the enquiry report cannot be relied on. It is contended that serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to non-furnishing of copies of documents referred to in the memo of charges. Various other contentions are also raised in the writ petition. 8. The President of the third respondent society has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 31.12.2011 defending the impugned orders. It is stated after the petitioner was dismissed from service by Ext.P13 WPC No.22438/2010 7 order dated 25.2.2002, steps were taken to fill up the post of Secretary by direct recruitment from the open market through the Cooperative Service Examination Board and that Smt. Namitha V.Menon the selected candidate was appointed as Secretary of the third respondent society by Ext.R3(a) order dated 5.5.2011. 9. I heard Sri.N.K.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.M.P.Sheeba, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.K.Jaju Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. Sri.N.K.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in **State of U.P.** v. **Shatrughan Lal and Another** (AIR 1998 SC 3038) that failure to supply documents on the plea that they are available for inspection vitiates the entire proceedings and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel contended that though the petitioner had sought for copies of documents referred to and relied on in the memo of charges, they were not supplied and the petitioner was only given an opportunity to take extracts from the documents and by refusing to furnish copies of documents available with the third respondent society, the employer effectively denied the petitioner an opportunity to defend the charges levelled against her. The learned counsel WPC No.22438/2010 8 contended that the enquiry held against the petitioner is therefore violative of the principles of natural justice and the report of enquiry cannot be relied on. The learned counsel contended that neither the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies nor the Government have adverted to the failure of the third respondent society to furnish copies of documents to the petitioner and therefore, the orders passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Government are also liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Sri.K.Jaju Babu learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 contended that after the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 letter dated 21.6.1999 upon receipt of Ext.P8 memo of charges, a reply dated 1.7.1999 was given to her permitting her to take down extracts of documents, but the petitioner took the stand that she should be given certified copies of documents which she later requested for on 7.7.1999. The learned counsel also submitted that thereafter on 13.7.1999 the sub committee of the society granted her 15 days further time to give a final reply to the memo of charges and she was also informed that if she finds it difficult to take down extracts due to any reason, she may authorise any person to act as her agent and in that event the agent will be provided all facilities to examine all relevant records and to take down extracts. The learned counsel WPC No.22438/2010 9 submitted that the petitioner was also informed that while examining the records if she or her agent finds it too difficult to take down extracts of any particular record due to its voluminous nature or any other reason, she or her agent may apply in writing to the Secretaryin-charge for getting extracts of those records and in that event copies duly attested by the Secretary in charge will be supplied to her within a reasonable time on payment of copying charges. The learned counsel submitted that notwithstanding that offer, the petitioner gave another request dated 23.7.1999 once again requesting for certified copies of documents and thereafter moved the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies who by Ext.P10 order dated 15.2.2001 rejected the request for certified copies of documents. The learned counsel contended that after the time limit for submission of the written statement of defence expired, the Board of Directors passed a resolution dated 17.9.1999 appointing the fifth respondent herein as Enquiry Officer, that thereupon the Enquiry Officer issued a notice dated 24.9.1999 posting the enquiry to 4.10.1999, that the petitioner thereupon submitted a representation dated 28.9.1999 seeking adjournment of the enquiry, that the enquiry was accordingly adjourned to 15.10.1999, that thereupon the Enquiry Officer issued a notice dated 11.10.1999 calling upon the petitioner to be present on 15.10.1999, but the petitioner WPC No.22438/2010 10 submitted a request dated 14.10.1999 for adjournment of the enquiry, that the said request was granted and the enquiry was adjourned to 30.10.1999, that thereupon the Enquiry Officer issued a notice dated 24.10.1999 calling upon the petitioner to be present for the enquiry on 30.10.1999, but the petitioner did not appear and therefore she was set ex-parte and the enquiry was held. The learned counsel contended that in the enquiry 8 witnesses were examined and 35 documents were admitted into evidence and the Enquiry Officer after enquiry submitted Ext.P23 report dated 19.2.2011 finding the petitioner guilty of 12 out of 14 charges leveled against her. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that in such circumstances as adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to inspect the documents and also to get copies, if necessary and the Enquiry Officer had also afforded her adequate opportunity to participate in the enquiry, it cannot be said that she was denied sufficient opportunity to defend the charges or to participate in the enquiry. 11. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Shorn of details, the main contention raised by the petitioner is that for want of copies of documents, which were relied on in the memo of charges, the petitioner could not submit WPC No.22438/2010 11 a written statement of defence and consequently she could not also participate in the enquiry. The stand taken by the respondents is that though the petitioner was offered adequate opportunity to inspect the documents and to take extracts if necessary and also to apply for and obtain attested copies, the petitioner insisted that she should be issued certified copies under rule 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and was not willing to be satisfied with attested copies. Ext.P8 memo of charges dated 8.6.1999 was served on the petitioner on 15.6.1999. She thereupon submitted Ext.P9 letter dated 21.6.1999 denying the charges leveled against her and requested for certified copies of documents. Ext.P15 order passed on appeal filed by the managing committee of the third respondent society discloses that upon receipt of the said letter, the sub committee of the society gave a reply dated 1.7.1999 to the petitioner permitting her to take down extracts of documents, but the petitioner took the stand that she should be given certified copies of documents which she applied for on 7.7.1999. Ext.P15 order also discloses that on 13.7.1999 the sub committee granted her 15 days further time to reply to the charges. The relevant portion of the letter dated 13.7.1999 which is extracted in pages 3 and 4 of Ext.P15 order reads as follows: _“Your application for certified copy of relevant documents cannot be granted. However you are given a_ WPC No.22438/2010 12 _further period of 15 days to give a final reply to the charge sheet. If you desire to do so, you may examine relevant records on which the charge memo is based which are kept in the office of the Bank in the safe custody of the Secretary in charge and take down necessary extracts. If you are indisposed or is incapable of personally coming to the Bank office due to any reasons, you may authorise any person to act as your agent. He/she will be provided all facilities to examine all relevant records and to take down extracts. It may be noted that if you are employing an agent, he/she should have sufficient authorisation from you to act as your agent and the authorisation has to be submitted to the secretary in charge._ _While examining the records if you or your agent find it too difficult to take down extracts of any particular records due to its voluminous nature or any other reason you or your agent may apply in writing to the Secretary in charge for getting the extracts of those records. Copies duly attested by the Secretary in charge will be supplied to you within a reasonable time (maximum of 48 hours if Bank Holidays do not intervene) which you or your agent may collect from the Bank on payment of copying charges borne by the Bank._ _Necessary instructions have been issued to the Secretary for providing you/your agent free access to examine and take down extracts of all relevant records._ _No further extension of time limit for submitting a final reply to the charge sheet will be given.”_ The fact that such a letter had been received is not disputed by the petitioner. However instead of inspecting the documents and taking extracts therefrom, she asked for certified copies of documents by filing a representation dated 23.7.1999. She thereafter moved the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and this Court by filing O.P.No.27124 of 1999 which was disposed of by judgment delivered on 2.11.1999 with a direction to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to examine her request and to take an appropriate decision WPC No.22438/2010 13 in the matter without delay. This Court also directed that until such time, the disciplinary enquiry shall not be proceeded with. 12. Ext.P15 order passed by the Managing Committee of the third respondent society, on appeal filed by the petitioner from Ext.P13 order, discloses that after the petitioner requested for certified copies of the documents by submitting a representation dated 23.7.1999, the Managing Committee appointed an Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer commenced the proceedings by issuing a notice dated 24.9.1999 whereby he called upon the petitioner to be present for the enquiry on 4.10.1999. On 4.10.1999 the petitioner asked for an adjournment on the ground that she is not keeping well. The enquiry was adjourned to 15.10.1999 and the petitioner was informed of the said fact as per notice dated 11.10.1999. Upon receipt of that notice, the petitioner submitted a request for adjournment on 14.10.1999 and accepting that request, the enquiry was adjourned to 30.10.1999. The Enquiry Officer thereafter issued a notice dated 24.10.1999 informing the petitioner of the fact that the enquiry will be held on 30.10.1999. The petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer on 30.10.1999 also. Instead, she made a request that the enquiry should be adjourned. The said request was opposed by the third respondent society. The Enquiry Officer thereupon set the petitioner ex-parte and WPC No.22438/2010 14 proceeded with the enquiry. On the side of the management, eight witnesses were examined and 35 documents were marked. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted Ext.P23 report dated 19.2.2001. In the meanwhile, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Ext.P10 order dated 15.2.2001 rejecting the petitioner’s request for certified copies of documents. Ext.P10 order has attained finality and is not under challenge in this writ petition. After the report of enquiry was received, the sub committee of the society issued Ext.P11 show cause notice accompanied by a copy of the enquriy report calling upon the petitioner to show cause why she should not be dismissed from service with effect from the date on which she was suspended. The petitioner was given 7 days time to give a reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner did not submit a reply within 7 days. Instead she moved the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Government. When the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Government rejected her request, she submitted a reply dated 20.2.2002. The sub committee considered the said reply and passed Ext.P13 order dated 25.2.2002 dismissing her from service with effect from 15.1.1999, the date of the order of suspension. Though initially by Ext.P17 order dated 17.5.2004, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thrissur rescinded Ext.P13 decision, the order passed by the WPC No.22438/2010 15 Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was set aside by this Court on 23.12.2005. The said judgment has attained finality. Thereafter the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed Ext.P19 order dated 10.4.2006 repelling the challenge to Ext.P13. The Government have by the impugned order affirmed the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In my opinion, in the light of the facts set out above, it cannot be said that the sub committee of the society and the Managing Committee of the society denied the petitioner an opportunity to defend the charges leveled against her or that the Enquiry Officer did not afford her an opportunity to participate in the enquiry and to defend the allegations against her. Though the management was willing to permit the petitioner to inspect the records and to take extracts and even get attested copies subject to the condition that she should meet the expenses in that regard, for reasons best known to her, the petitioner insisted on certified copies of the records. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the disciplinary authority in furnishing copies of documents to her. 13. In the light of the facts set out above, I am of the opinion that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in **State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and Another** (AIR 1998 SC 3038) can have no WPC No.22438/2010 16 application to the case on hand. In that case, the stand taken by the management was that the employee had a right to inspect the documents at any time and for that reason copies of documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not supplied to him. It was in such circumstances that the Apex Court held that the mere fact that the employee could have inspected the documents is not enough; he has to be informed that the documents of which copies were asked for by him may be inspected and access to records must be assured to him. In the light of the facts set out above it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied access to records or an opportunity to get copies thereof. Similarly the contention that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to participate in the enquiry cannot also be sustained. As stated earlier, the Enquiry Officer had adjourned the enquiry from 4.10.1999 to 15.10.1999 and thereafter to 30.10.1999. All adjournments were made at the request of the petitioner. The petitioner did not attend the enquiry on 30.10.1999. The Enquiry Officer therefore set her ex-parte and proceeded to conduct the enquiry. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer did not afford the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. It is thus evident from the materials on record that the before the impugned orders were passed, the petitioner was afforded WPC No.22438/2010 17 adequate opportunities to defend the charges leveled against her. The petitioner who did not utilise that opportunity is not in my opinion entitled to any relief in this writ petition. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.22438/2010 18