W.P.(C) No. 21301 of 2017 (K)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/10TH KARTHIKA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 21301 of 2017 (K)** ## **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): ------------------------** **1. A.P.JAYAN, AGED 56, S/O LATE. PAMANABHAN, RESIDING AT ANAKALUKAL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM PO, KOTTAYM.** ## **2. DEVASIA THOMAS,** - **AGED 50 YEARS, S/O THOMAS VARGHESE, RESIDING AT THADATHEL, CHATHANTHARA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA- 686 510.** ## **3. JOHNY JOSEPH,** - **AGED 47 YEARS, S/O LATE. P.C JOSEPH, PADIMATTATHIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA- 686 506.** ## **4. K.R REJI,** - **AGED 53 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVANACHARI, RESIDING AT KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEERMADE P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA-685 531.** ## **5. MATHEW JOSEPH,** - **AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE. P.C JOSEPH,** - **RESIDING AT PADIMATTATHIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, KERALA- 686 506.** ## **6. V.V VARGHESE,** - **AGED 57 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE, VECHOOR, MANIMALA P.O, KOTTAYAM.** ## **7. ABRAHAM.A.A.,** - **AGED 60 YEARS, S/O ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT ALENCHERIL HOUSE, KORUTHODE P.O, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,KERALA-686 513.** **BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.ANIL K.NAIR SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN** **2/-** **-2-** **WP(C).No. 21301 of 2017 (K)** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** **2. SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** **3. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** **4. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER'S FEDERATION LTD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM- 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **5. MANAGING DIRECTOR,** - **KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER'S FEDERATION LTD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 020.** ## **6. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,** - **KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS' FEDERATION LTD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM- 682 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER.** ## **7. BAIJU VARGHESE,** - **SHOP-IN-CHARGE (UNDER SUSPENSION), PONKUNNAM, FOREIGN LIQUOR SHOP, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688 601** **R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIMAL K. NATH R4 TO R6 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, R7 BY ADV. SMT.P.B.WAHIDA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-10-2017, THE COURT ON 01-11-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 21301 of 2017 (K)** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------------------------** - **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 13.9.2016 IN CRIME NO. 1140 OF 2016 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P2** - **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 29.4.2003 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT OF CONSUMERFED AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ERSTWHILE EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE LIQUOR OUTLETS.** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ADI/FLS/PON/16-17 DATED 13.9.2016 ISSUED SUSPENDING THE PETITIONERS AS WELL AS THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 3.11.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION LETTER DATED 14.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P5(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION LETTER DATED 12.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P5(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION LETTER DATED 11.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ADI/DE/2016-17 DATED 14.12.2016** - **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ADI/FLS/PON/16-17 DATED 6.5.2017 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ADI/FLS/PON/16-17 DATED 6.5.2017 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ADI/FLS/PON/16-17 DATED 6.5.2017 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ADI/FLS/PON/16-17 DATED 6.5.2017 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7(D) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ADI/FLS/PON/16-17 DATED 6.5.2017 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P7(E) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ADI/FLS/PON/16-17 DATED 6.5.2017 ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P7(F) THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ADI/FLS/PON/16-17 DATED 6.5.2017 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **WP(C).No. 21301 of 2017 (K)** **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.5.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADI/FLS/PON/17-18 DATED 7.6.2017 SENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9(A) TRUE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADI/FLS/PON/17-18 DATED 7.6.2017 SENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADI/FLS/PON/17-18 DATED 7.6.2017 SENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9(C) TRUE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADI/FLS/PON/17-18 DATED 7.6.2017 SENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9(D) TRUE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADI/FLS/PON/17-18 DATED 7.6.2017 SENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9(E) TRUE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADI/FLS/PON/17-18 DATED 7.6.2017 SENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9(F) TRUE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ADI/FLS/PON/17-18 DATED 7.6.2017 SENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 16.2.2017 SENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P9 DATED 7.6.2017.** - **EXHIBIT 10(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 16.2.2017 SENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P9(A) DATED 7.6.2017.** **EXHIBIT P10(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 16.2.2017 SENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P9(B) DATED 7.6.2017.`** **EXHIBIT P10(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 16.2.2017 SENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P9(C) DATED 7.6.2017.** **EXHIBIT P10(D) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 16.2.2017 SENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P9(D) DATED 7.6.2017.** **EXHIBIT P10(E) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 16.2.2017 SENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P9(E) DATED 7.6.2017.** **EXHIBIT P10(F) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 16.2.2017 SENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P9(F) DATED 7.6.2017.** **EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAMPLE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.** **3/-** **3-** **WP(C).No. 21301 of 2017 (K)** **EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.6.2017 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DENYING THE TIME SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.6.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **-----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.8(3) DATED 26/09/2016 OF THE COMMITTEE** **EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.6 DATED 31/10/2016 OF THE COMMITTEE** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** -------------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** ## **----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of November, 2017 JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P3 series orders of suspension, Ext.P4 charge memo, Ext.P6 order appointing enquiry officer, Ext.P7 series of decision to recover the loss amount from the petitioners, Ext. P9 series of show cause notice issued after enquiry by the 4th respondent, as well as Ext.P10 series enquiry reports of the enquiry officer, and for further consequential orders. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioners are Abkari workers employed by ConsumerFed at its Foreign Liquor Shop at Ponkunnam. This writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the steps initiated by the management to terminate the petitioners from service, and also to recover an amount of Rs.2,28,113.75/- from each of them. The issue pointed out in this writ petition, started owing to the loss sustained by the 4th respondent consequent to a theft committed in the FL-1 shop during night time. Crime No.1140 of 2016 was registered by the Ponkunnam Police on 13.09.2016. However, the police has not implicated the petitioners or any other employee. It is the contention of the **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** 2 petitioners that, without taking steps to ensure proper investigation in the case registered, the top brass of Consumerfed was bent upon making the petitioners scapegoats in their bid to save those who were actually responsible for the serious official lapses. Theft occurred owing to lack of essential safety measures, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be attributed to the petitioners. 3. The prime contention advanced by the petitioners is that, the appointing authority being the disciplinary authority, and so long as the managing committee is the appointing authority under Rule 182 (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 [hereinafter called, 'the Rules, 1969'], Ext.P3 order of suspension and Ext.P4 memo of charges can be issued only by the managing committee and not by the Managing Director, in accordance with Rule 198(6) of Rules, 1969. 4. That apart, it is contended, Ext.P4 memo of charges is vague and is not accompanied by a Statement of Allegations, and therefore, the memo of charges is not sustainable under law. The disciplinary proceedings can be initiated only by the Disciplinary Sub Committee as mandated **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** 3 by Rules 198(2A) and 198(2B) of Rules, 1969. Therefore, according to the petitioners, taking into account the totality of circumstances, the entire action initiated right from the order of suspension is illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be interfered with by this Court. Other contentions with respect to the law laid down by this Court as well as the apex court are also pointed out by the petitioners. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondents 4 to 6, challenging the very maintainability of the writ petition itself. Apart from justifying the orders, sought to be quashed by the petitioners, it is contended that, petitioners participated in the enquiry proceedings and finally, Ext.P10 series of enquiry report is submitted by the enquiry officer. Therefore, at this belated point of time, petitioners are not entitled to turn around and attack the proceedings initiated against them. That apart, it is contended, even though enquiry report is submitted by the enquiry officer, the same has not attained any finality, since a decision is to be taken on the basis of the enquiry report, and if any action is initiated against the petitioners, there are alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners to challenge any coercive action in 4 **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, 1969. 6. It is also submitted, it is a well-settled position in law that a writ petition is not maintainable against a Cooperative Society. That apart, it is stated that, the order of suspension was issued by the Managing Director, consequent to resolution No.8(3) dated 24.09.2016 adopted by the Administrative Committee of the 4th respondent to suspend the petitioners with effect from 13.09.2016, and thereby ratifying the suspension order issued by the Managing Director on 13.09.2016. Immediately on coming to know of the theft incident, on 13.09.2016 itself, the Administrative Committee Convenor and the member of the Committee have inspected the shop and found that the employees have not taken safety measures directed to be taken by the Managing Director. The direction to deposit the money in the Bank, by making specific arrangement with the Bank to deposit the amount on a holiday also has not been complied with. The alternative measure directed, to keep the balance money in the Police Station, which was permitted to be done by the police authorities, also was not complied with. It was also directed to retain two **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** 5 employees in the shop during night, which was also not complied with. Therefore, there was enough and more lapses and laches on the part of the petitioners to protect the interests of the 4th respondent. 7. That apart, it is contended that, the police also suspected the involvement of the inmates, and the employees who were in service on the day, if permitted to continue, would affect the investigation, and there was every possibility of tampering the evidence. Therefore, the suspension on 13.09.2016 was inevitable and ratified by the Committee as per its order dated 24.09.2016, evident from Ext.R4(a). Other contentions are also raised, justifying the action of respondents 4 to 6. 8. It is further contended that, the enquiry was conducted complying with all principles of natural justice. Apart from all these, the paramount contention advanced by learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 is that, since the managing committee was not in power, the Administrative Committee appointed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was looking after the affairs of the society. The Managing Director is the Chief Executive of the Federation **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** 6 and all communications of the Federation are to be issued through the Managing Director. The decision to issue charge memo was taken by the Administrative Committee and the charge memo is also approved by the Administrative Committee, and therefore, there is no irregularity in implementing the decision of the Administrative Committee by the Managing Director. 9. That apart, it is contended that, the competence of the Managing Director to issue the charge memo has not been disputed by the petitioners in the reply submitted to the same. Having accepted the charge memo and submitted to the jurisdiction of the enquiry proceedings, petitioners are not entitled to attack the proceedings after the enquiry is over. Therefore, according to the said respondents, the writ petition, at this stage of the proceedings, is unwarranted and unsustainable under law. 10. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and disputing the contentions raised by respondents 4 to 6. **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** 7 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 12. The respective counsel argued the matter in accordance with the pleadings. The discussion of facts made above would make it clear that the sole question remains to be considered in this writ petition is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to the enquiry proceedings initiated right from the suspension order, Ext.P3 series and up to drawing of the enquiry report evident from Ext.P10 series. It is important to notice that petitioners have participated in the enquiry, they have submitted objection to Ext.P4 charge memo, evidence was adduced, sufficient opportunity was provided, and therefore, it can never be said that the conduct of the enquiry is in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners nor violative of the principles of natural justice. 13. The gravamen of the contention advanced by the petitioners is that, the Managing Director of the 4th respondent Federation is not vested with any powers to issue Ext.P3 order of suspension, since the managing Committee, which is the 8 **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** appointing authority, is to take a decision in the matter. It is an admitted fact that Ext.P3 suspension order is issued by the Managing Director on 13.09.2016 itself, consequent to theft of Rs.20 lakhs. However, it is evident from Ext.R4(a) that the said decision of the Managing Director was ratified by the Administrative Committee in power on 24.09.2016 by deciding to suspend the employees specified thereunder. 14. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, as per Rule 182(2) of Rules, 1969, the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society is the competent authority to appoint employees in a Co-operative Society. So also, as per sub-rule (2A) of Rule 198, the Committee of a society shall constitute a disciplinary subcommittee consisting of not more than three of its members, of whom one shall be designated as Chairman, but the President of the committee of the society shall not be a member in the disciplinary sub-committee. Reliance is placed on sub-rule (2B) of Rule 198, which stipulates that the disciplinary sub-committee so constituted shall enquire into the charges against the employee either by themselves or by engaging an external agency. 9 **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** 15. It is evident from Ext.P10 series of enquiry report that the enquiry was conducted by one M. Chandramohan, who is a retired Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is also equally important to note that the managing committee, at the time of incident was not in the administration of the society, but an Administrative Committee appointed by the Registrar was in power. Therefore, the stipulations created under Rule 188(2) and sub-rules (2A) and (2B) of Rule 198 of Rules, 1969 have no much force. It is admitted that the Administrative Committee was managing the affairs of the 4th respondent Federation. Therefore, there is no basis for contending that there should have been a disciplinary committee constituted for the purpose of conducting the enquiry proceedings by the managing committee. In my considered opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners cannot insist that the committee of the society should have taken all actions. In fact, there is no stipulation contained either under the Act or the Rules, encompassing the Administrative Committee to constitute a disciplinary committee, and comply with the afore-quoted provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, and the same is not practically possible also. 10 **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** 16. Apart from all these aspects, petitioners participated in the enquiry and the enquiry has attained finality, evident from Ext.P10 series of enquiry report. It is also evident from Ext.P10 that the enquiry officer has conveyed his observations with respect to the entire incident. It is also evident from the pleadings and documents produced by respondents 4 to 6 that the charge memo was also issued on the basis of the decision of the Administrative Committee. The Managing Director of the 4th respondent was also authorized as per Ext.R4(b) dated 01.11.2016, to take all actions in connection with the enquiry. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the challenge made by the petitioners against the initiation of enquiry and the enquiry report cannot be sustained under law. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has yet another contention in respect of Ext.P7 series of notice by which the amounts were directed to be recovered from the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, without imposing a punishment as contemplated under Rule 198 of the Rules, 1969, the loss caused to the society cannot be quantified. Having not done so, Ext.P7 series is also liable to be interfered with, which contention is countered by learned Standing 11 **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6, contending that the same is a separate action initiated by the 4th respondent to recover the loss suffered from the petitioners who are responsible, and the same has nothing to do with the enquiry proceedings. However, it is conceded by the learned Standing Counsel that in order to recover the amounts, they will resort to whatever legal remedy available to the society under the Act and Rules, 1969. In my considered opinion, Ext.P7 series of notices are issued against the civil liability of the petitioners to repay the amount. There is nothing on record to show that the same is done by way of a punishment, as contemplated under Rule 198 of the Rules, 1969, especially due to the fact that, punishment is not yet imposed. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in ' _**Anil Gilurker**_ ## _**v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank and another'**_ [2011 (14) SCC 379 : 2011 KHC 4854], to canvass the proposition that an enquiry is to be conducted by providing strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges 12 **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. So also, the proposition of law laid down in _**'Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. State of W.B.**_ ' [1970 (3) SCC 548 : 1970 KHC 612] is also pressed into service to canvass the very same proposition of law. 19. The judgment of this Court in _**'Suseelan L. v. Indian Bank, Chennai and others**_ ' [2014 KHC 605] is also pressed into service to contend that, when a charge memo is given to the delinquent officer, the statement of facts and allegations must be specifically furnished along with the charge. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in _**'Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and others**_ ' [2013 (6) SCC 515] and specifically to paragraph 11, which read thus: _“11. The purpose of holding an enquiry against any person is not only with a view to establish the charges levelled against him or to impose a penalty, but is also conducted with the object of such an enquiry recording the truth of the matter, and in that sense, the outcome of an enquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand, and hence result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority concerned is a paramount necessity.”_ 20. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent has invited my attention to a Division Bench 13 **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** judgment of this Court in _**'Elamgulam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Gopinathan Nair'**_ [2007 (1) KLT 147, to contend that the administrator has jurisdiction to impose punishment on employees. 21. I have considered the rival submissions made across the Bar, and as I have pointed out earlier, the contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ petition with respect to illegality in issuing Ext.P3 suspension order, Ext.P4 charge memo and other consequential actions up to Ext.P10 series of enquiry report can never be said to be bad, illegal or arbitrary. Moreover, petitioners have participated in the enquiry proceedings without raising any objections in respect of the order of suspension and the charge memo issued. Moreover, _prima facie_ , I am of the opinion that the order of suspension and the charge memo issued are in accordance with law. Even if Ext.P3 order of suspension initially suffered from any irregularity, the same was rectified by ratifying the same by the Administrative Committee. 22. Reckoning the facts and law and a conspectus of the entire issues, the writ petition cannot be sustained under law, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction conferred on this Court 14 ## **W.P.(C) No.21301 of 2017** under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage of the proceedings, and the irresistible conclusion is, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I do so. However, I make it clear that the observations made above shall not stand in the way of the petitioners initiating any action consequent to the enquiry report, in accordance with law. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** St/26.10.2017