Court : Kerala
[CR] IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE30H DAY OF MARCH20159TH CHAITHRA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 1358 of 2014 (S) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/1ST PETITIONER :- --------------------------------- THOMAS ARUJA, AGED83YEARS S/O.VASTHYAN ARUJA, CHERIYA KATTATHU HOUSE PONNARIMANGALAM DESOM, MULAVUKADU VILLAGE KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS & OTHERS TO WHOM DIRECTION ISSUED :- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.MANOJ AGED AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER SECRETARY, MULAVUKADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT MULAVUKADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALK, MULAVUKADU P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682 504.2. MR.K.X.JOSEPH, AGED AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.3. MR.SUJITH, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1963Ker151; (1963)ILLJ359Ker
1. This is an appeal by the peti-tioner in O. P. No. 209 of 1959 against the (sic) missal of that petition. The petition was beard along with O. P. No. 205 of 1959. That petition was allowed.2. The appellant was a Sub Divisional Officer in the Forest Department. The petitioner in O. P. No. 205 of 1959 was a Divisional Officer in that Department. There was an inquiry as against both of them and a Range Officer under the Tiavancors Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1122.3. There were six articles of charge against the appellant. The Inquiry Coinmissioner (sic) him guilty under Articles 1 and 6 and not guilty as regards the other articles of charge. The judgment under appeal docs not endorse the conclusion as far as Article 6 is concerned.4. By a common order, Ext. P-7 dated 1-2-1958, the Government directed the dismissal of all the three officers. The appellant and the Divisional Officer appealed to the Governor. The Governor modified the punishment to one of removal from service in all t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2000CriLJ3311
ORDERK.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.1. This M.C. is filed by the petitioner to direct the 2nd respondent, Director General of Police to take necessary action and to direct his subordinates to take all action contemplated under law against the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad for his criminal acts committed against the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a Police Constable with General No. 4317 in KAP-II Battalion now under suspension. According to the petitioner, on 27-1-2000 after his duty at Puthoor Matha Amrithananda Mayi Madam while he was proceeding to meet his uncle near the civil station in a bus some unfortunate incident happened. It is alleged that the petitioner has molested a women travelling in the bus, though according to him, he accidentally happened to touch the body of that woman. According to the petitioner, she got wild, raised hue and cry and tried to assault the petitioner and she got out of the bus and raised alarm. The constable who was on duty there, caught hold of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1953CriLJ752
ORDER No. S. 5-9214/50/CS dated 9.10.1951.1. Sri P. Joseph John was the Electrical Engineer of the Travancore State at the time of integration of Travancore with Cochin and continued as the head of the Electricity Department until he was placed under suspension in Government Order No. A-8-9024/49/SD dated 26.12.1949. The suspension was the result of confidential preliminary enquiries which established prima facie certain charges against him. Sri K. Sankaran, Judge, High Court, was appointed as Commissioner under Section 3, Travancore Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 11 of 1122, to conduct a formal and public enquiry into the case. There were 26 charges framed against him. The Commissioner has enquired into all these charges & forwarded his report. Of the 26 charges, charges XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XXIII, XXIV, and XXV were dropped and the irregularity in charge IX was condoned. The articles of charge and a summary of the findings on the various charges are given in the enclosu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1226Ker
Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. The question related to the validity of the disciplinary action taken against the appellant and the order of dismissal from service, Ext. P6 dated September 7, 1987.2. The appellant was formerly the Finance Manager of the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd., Cannanore, and was holding the said post till September 10, 1987 when the above said order of dismissal was passed. A domestic enquiry was earlier conducted by the third respondent, Enquiry Officer, who was a practising lawyer. There were, in all, 19 charges against the appellant out of which 17 were held to be proved. In this appeal before us, the same points which were urged before the learned Single Judge are again urged.3. The following points arise for consideration:'(1) Whether, the Regulations applicable to the officers of the Corporation contemplated a second...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2009Ker60; 2008(3)KLJ843
K.T. Sankaran, J.1 The questions involved in this Writ Petition are: (1) Whether the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta appointed under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 have jurisdiction to allow amendment of a complaint or an application; and (2) Whether the Lok Ayukta and the Upa Lok Ayukta have power to invoke Rule 8 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure and permit a representative action being taken, empowering one or more parties in the complaint to defend the complaint in a representative capacity on behalf of other who are not parties to proceedings.2. The writ petitioners are not parties to the proceedings before the Lok Ayukta. Their grievance is against Exts. P3 and P5 orders passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta. As per Ext.P5 order dated 4th July 2008, the Upa Lok Ayukta impleaded additional respondents 4 and 5 (respondents 5 and 6 in the Writ Petition) in a representative capacity representing similarly situated persons. By the same order, the Upa Lok Ayukta directed the complainant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN MONDAY,THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2013 10TH ASHADHA, 1935 OP (CAT).No. 568 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------------------- [O.A.NO.684/2012 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 01 01-2013] ........ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), LAVANYA, CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523.2. K.K.RAJAN, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (S.C.B), KAILASAM, GURUDEV NAGAR, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM-691 017. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI - 3.2. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, C.G.O COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3.3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), C.B.I HEAD QUARTERS, 5-B, 7TH FLOO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ611Ker
ORDERN. Varadaraja Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Mr. M.V. Itticheria, assistant engineer, in the service of respondent 1, State of Kerala, questioning the validity of certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.2. There were certain irregularities alleged against the petitioner in connexion with the construction of a particular road in Trivandrum East Subdivision within his jurisdiction. Accordingly on 2 July 1957 Government placed him under suspension and on 21 November 1957 ordered a formal and public enquiry into the truth of the imputations under the Public Servants Enquiry Act XI of 1122. Section 2 of that Act contemplated only inquiries into imputations of misconduct as distinguished from irregularities. So on a writ motion by petitioner in O.P. No 24 of 1958, the High Court by order, dated 19 March 1958 quashed the inquiry. The order of suspension was on 25 June 1958 later quashed by the High Court in fresh writ motio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker260; 1961CriLJ484
Raghavan, J. 1. These cases raise an important and interesting question of law regarding the necessity for obtaining sanction of the State Government to prosecute either under Section 132 or under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner in Crl.. B. P. No. 238 of 1957 was charged under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. He was the Head Accountant-cum-cashier in the Office of the Assistant Supply Officer, Ernakulam and he was entrusted with a sum of Rs. 1,525-8-6 on 16th February 1957, in his capacity as a public servant, for the purpose of disbursing that amount to one Padmanabha Prabhu, who supplied petrol to the Supply Department. He committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the said amount by dishonestly misappropriating the same or converting it to his own use and also committed falsification of accounts of the above Department by making false entries in the said accounts. On these allegations charges under Sections 409 and 477A of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The petitioner, who is the respondent in Ext.P1 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein, before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 complaint and seeking a declaration that the said complaint is not maintainable before the Commission. He has also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 proceedings dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Commission in Ext.P1 complaint. 2. Going by the averments in Ext.P1 complaint, the 2nd respondent's husband who was an Army Captain died 18 years back while serving the nation, leaving behind herself and two daughters, who are now pursuing their medical and engineering studies at Bangalore. In order to meet the educational expenses of her children, the 2nd respondent was constrained to sell her dwelling house and decided to shift residence to a tenanted premises. The 2nd respondent entrusted Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!