State of Kerala and Others v Suresh Kumar K.K; State of Kerala and Others v Rajesh Kumar K.K
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
- Mohammed Nias C.P.
- Judgment Date
- 2022-06-21
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Original Petitions (O.P.(KAT).Nos.26/2018 and 430/2017) are dismissed; the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s orders directing reinstatement with continuity in service are not interfered with, and no illegality is found in those orders.
- Final Disposition
- O.P.(KAT).Nos.26/2018 & 430/2017 dismissed; Tribunal orders stand.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- SURESH KUMAR.K.K S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, DRIVER CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, T.4334, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 506
- RAJESH KUMAR K.K FORMER DRIVER CPO, T5208, CITY A.R CAMP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT NALINIKRISHNA, POOZHIKUNNU, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 019
Respondents
- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHURAM, KERALA - 695 001
- STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
- THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KOLLAM RURAL, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA - 691 506
- THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
- EMPLOYMENT DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • B. Unnikrishnan Kaimal
- • SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Counsels for Respondents
- • S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay
- • Peter Jose Christo
- • S.A. Anand
- • L. Annapoorna
- • K.A. Balan
- • Saju John
- • N. Santha
- • V. Varghese
Case Synopsis & Summary
These two linked petitions challenge Kerala Administrative Tribunal orders in OA Nos. 847/2016 and 402/2016, directing reinstatement and continuity in service of police drivers who were removed after sponsorship by the Employment Exchange. The respondents (State and its officers) had sponsored candidates under sports priority; after probation and more than a decade of service, the District Employment Officer cancelled the candidates’ employment registration, and the District Police Chief removed them. The Tribunal held the removals were bad for want of notice and due process, and allowed the OA petition with reinstatement and continuity. The government contends that the certificates furnished by the applicants were bogus and, by Annexure R5(h), cancellation of registration was warranted; no enquiry or notice was necessary because the registration had become void. The court, however, notes that Annexure R5(h) contemplates an enquiry and that no opportunity was provided to explain allegations. It also holds that sponsoring officers, upon permanent employment, become functus officio over the candidate and that registration ceases to exist, undermining the basis for cancellation. While Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (SC) is cited to illustrate that due process is ordinarily required, the court concludes the petitioners’ interpretation is not supported and dismisses the petitions, upholding the Tribunal’s approach and orders.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- functus officio
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The State contends that because the certificates furnished by the applicants were bogus, no pre-removal enquiry was necessary. Relying on Annexure R5(h), it argues that if information furnished is false, registration can be cancelled. It acknowledges that the undertaking presupposes an enquiry but maintains that the registration is already cancelled by the Employment Exchange, and hence no further enquiry was warranted. It submits that once a sponsored candidate obtains permanent employment, the registration becomes functus officio and ceases to exist, providing a valid basis for cancellation and removal. The State also points to the Government Order (G.O.) and asserts the Tribunal erred in requiring notice prior to enquiry. The counsel references Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (SC) to argue the need for due process, but the court ultimately finds insufficient support for the petitioners’ stance and dismisses the petitions.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that the appointments were to permanent posts and that removal cannot occur without proper notice and a fair enquiry in accordance with the rules. They emphasize that the petitioners were approved probationers and served for over ten years, and the Tribunal rightly held that removal without notice was illegal. They contend that cancellation of registration after sponsorship does not alter the requirement of due process and that the Certificates being bogus would require verifying it through an enquiry, not immediate cancellation. They rely on statutes and procedural safeguards to insist on fair hearing before removing employees, contending that the undertakings cannot substitute for due process.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viswanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala | 2004 (1) KLT 708 (SC) | Mentioned Only | Cited by the Government Pleader to support the contention regarding due process, but the court notes it does not support the petitioners. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against State of Kerala and Others v Suresh Kumar K.K; State of Kerala and Others v Rajesh Kumar K.K and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.