V.KUMARAN v. COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947** ## **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** ## **PETITIONER:** **V.KUMARAN** **LEADING SENIOR ASSISTANT OFFICER VI, CODE NO. 1493, INSPECTION & QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT, COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., KOCHI-682015. RESIDING AT VANNARATH HOUSE, ANNALLUR.P.O.,(VIA) CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR.** **BY ADVS. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SMT.ANNA THOMAS SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI-682015.** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD., KOCHI-682015.** ## **BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order by which his request to review the punishment awarded to him and modified thereafter, was rejected. 2. While the petitioner was working as Senior Attendant Grade IV, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order issued on 21.11.1998. In the order of suspension itself it was alleged that he threatened and abused Superior Employees of the Company; committed willful insubordination and disorderly behavior amounting to indiscipline. It is stated that Ext.R1(a) memo of charge was issued to him on 27.04.1998. 3. The allegation against the petitioner was that he abused and misbehaved towards Superior Officers on 18.04.1998, when Senior Executives of the Company were waiting for the arrival of a VIP. It was also alleged that the petitioner abused the Superior **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** 3 Officers in front of other employees using filthy language. Charges culminated in an order of punishment as per order dated 19.12.1998. It is stated that all the 5 charges against him in Ext.R1(a) memo were found proved in the enquiry. It is stated that petitioner was demoted to the post of Attender Grade III. The order of punishment was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C).No.23103 of 2003. In Ext.P4 judgment, this Court found that the petitioner had pleaded for the mercy of the management and therefore his case required reconsideration at the highest level of the management at least regarding the quantum of punishment imposed on him. Taking note of the fact that he had tendered pardon for any wrong that is attributable to him, this Court set aside the punishment and directed the respondents to re-consider the matter. 4. Thereafter the Chairman & Managing Director issued Ext.P5 order and reduced the punishment to stoppage of increments for four years with cumulative **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** 4 effect as on 21.11.1998. Thereafter on 02.05.2014 petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation requesting to reduce the punishment imposed in Ext.P5, pointing out that a major penalty was imposed on him. Thereafter he approached this Court in W.P. (C).No.13296 of 2014 praying for a direction to the Chairman and Managing Director to pass orders on Ext.P6 representation. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the second respondent therein to pass orders on his representation expeditiously. Ext.P9 is the order passed thereafter on 17.06.2014, pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment, by the Chairman & Managing Director in which it was stated that already a lenient view was taken and punishment of demotion was already modified to a lesser punishment of stoppage of increment for 4 years with cumulative effect. It was stated that all the charges alleged against him were proved in the enquiry conducted 16 years back and there was no justification in seeking a further review of the punishment. Petitioner has **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** 5 again challenged Ext.P9 order. 5. According to the petitioner this Court had already set aside the major penalty of demotion imposed on him; though thereafter punishment was modified again another major penalty is imposed. 6. Learned Senior counsel points out that respondents have not sustained any loss and that the charges were not serious so as to impose a major penalty. Learned Senior counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others** [(1987) 4 SCC 611] and argued that the punishment was liable to be reduced. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel pointed out that if the charges which were found proved in the domestic enquiry are considered, no leniency can be shown towards the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the modification itself was ordered only because of the directions contained in the judgment and that the findings arrived at in the enquiry were not interfered with by this court. It is **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** 6 also argued that petitioner is a workman and his remedy is before the Labour Court and even the Labour Court cannot interfere with a punishment of demotion or barring of increments under Section 11 (A) of the ID Act, as held by the Apex Court in **South Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Limited** [(2006) 5 SCC 201]. 8. Having considered the contentions on both sides, it is seen that the charges levelled against the petitioner in Ext.R1(a) are to the effect that the petitioner abused the Superior Officers using filthy language. All the charges are found proved in the enquiry. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, in Ext.P4 judgment this Court has not interfered with the findings in the enquiry; this Court did not also suggest what should be the punishment. Respondents have complied with the said directions in the judgment and reduced the punishment of demotion to that of barring of increments with cumulative effect. **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** 7 9. Learned Senior Counsel argued that in Ext.P7 judgment this Court directed re-consideration. A perusal of the judgment shows that what was sought was a direction to the Chairman and Managing Director to consider his representation and that the learned Standing Counsel submitted that it was under consideration. This Court did not even direct a reconsideration in Ext.P7 judgment. At any rate, the respondents have considered the case and passed Ext.P9 order. Even though the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the punishment is highly disproportionate, I am of the view that proportionality of the punishment cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless its shocks the conscience of the court. It is settled law that the interference of this Court in matters relating disciplinary proceedings are very limited. And judicial review on the proportionality of the punishment awarded to petitioner barring his increment for 4 years with **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** 8 cumulative effect is not called for in the light of the judgments in **Union of India v. P.Gunasekharan** [(2015)2 SCC 610], **Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain** [(2013) 10 SCC 106], **Chandra Kumar Chopra v. Union of India** [(2012) 6 SCC 369], **Om Kumar v. Union of India** [(2001) 2 SCC 386], etc. In the above circumstances of the case, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the impugned order. Hence petitioner does not deserve any relief in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO NO. PERL/DA12/1493/96 DATED 21-11-1996 OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(HULL) ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO. PERL/DA12/1493/96 DATED 1-1-1999 OF THE DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO. PF/1493/PART II DATED 28-4-2003 OF THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERL & ADMN) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6-11-2007 RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.23103 OF 2003 A.** - **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO. PERL/DA12/1493/96 DATED 14-1-2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 2- 5-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27-5-2014 RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.13296 OF 2014.** - **EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 2- 6-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO. PF/1493/PT. DATED 17-6-2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **WP(C).No.27061 OF 2014(G)** 10 ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET NO.PERL/DA.12/1493/98 DATED 27.04.1998 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.**