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 : (1993)ILLJ686Ker
Usha, J.1. An Advocate practicing in the Thrissur Bar is the petitioner herein. He was appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, Thrissur for a period of three years under Government order dated October 7, 1991. The challenge in this original petition is against termination of his service as Addl. Government Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor, Thrissur before the expiry of the term of appointment.2. Ext. P1 order of appointment would show that the appointment was subject to the terms and conditions provided under the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978. Rule 9 of the above Rules provides that the term of appointment of a person appointed as Addl. Government Pleader and Addl. Public Prosecutor shall be for a period of three years. But Rule 17 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules, the Government may terminate the appointment of any Government Law Officer, other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1993ACJ1166; AIR1993Ker226; (1999)IIILLJ251Ker
Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This reference to a Full Bench raises important questions under Sections 94, 95(1)(b) and its two provisos and under Section 95(2)(b) and also under Sections 110-A and 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appeal itselfarises out of a claim allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in which the competent authority made the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company liable in a sum of Rs. 51,256.20. The appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 read with Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The respondents-claimants before us are the legal representatives of the workman as also the owner of the vehicle. 2. The facts of the case briefly are that the deceased, one John Mathew fell from the top of a stage carriage bus belonging to the respondent-vehicle owner while the vehicle was stationed at the Municipal Bus Stand at Palai. He fell down at 5 a.m. on 13-12-1984 and was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1994Ker179
Paripoornan, J. 1. This is a public interest litigation. It concerns the famous Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur -- a very ancient temple of unique importance worshipped and held in great reverence by millions all over the country. The temple owns extensive movable and immovable properties and endowments. The temple has its own heritage and traditions of renowed referred memory, which adds grandeur and majesty to it over the entire globe. Shri C.K. Rajan, Chennara House, P.O. Nhamanghat, via. Kunnamkulam sent a communication to one of us (Paripoornan, J.) dated 3-2-1993 highlighting gross irregularities, corrupt practices, maladministration and mismanagement in Sree Krishna Temple, Guruvayur. A statement from Shri C.K. Rajan was recorded by the Registrar of this Court on 11-2-1993. He owned the sending of the petition, its content, etc. Gross irregularities, misadministration and various lapses were disclosed. The matter was placed before My Lord the Chief Justice, who, by order dated 11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ45Ker
B.N. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner, an employee of the Rubber Board, Kottaym (2nd Respondent) which is a statutory Body constituted and governed under the Rubber Act, 1947, has prayed for issue of a direction to quash Exts. P3, P7 and P9 and by a subsequent petition he has also prayed for restoration of his seniority in the promotion post which was overlooked when his juniors, namely Respondents 4 to 26, were promoted.2. By Ext.P3 penalty of withholding the increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner . By Ext. P7 his appeal against the penalty imposed in the disciplinary proceeding was dismissed by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi (1st Respondent). By Ext.P9 the appeal against the order of promotion of Respondents 4 to 26 in supersession of his claim to the post of Upper Division Clerk, from that of the Lower Division Clerk was rejected. Since, during the pendency of the Original Petition he was promoted to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ847Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The Southern Railway is the appellant in this appeal. The writ appeal is directed against the order of Ghuttal, J. in O.P. No. 9478 of 1988 allowing the Original petition filed by the respondent herein whereby the appellate order No. l dated September 22, 1988, Ext.P-12, confirming the order of dismissal of the respondent from service was quashed. The learned single Judge further held that the petitioner should be treated to have been in the employment as Railway Rakshak notwithstanding the orders impugned in this petition and quashed by him and that the respondent should be entitled to all the benefits such as salary, allowances, seniority, promotion, etc. as if the impugned orders were never made. It was further ordered that if the respondent had crossed the age of superannuation, he should be paid all the benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, etc.2. A brief resume of the background of this case is necessary to appreciate the rival contentions. The responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1999CriLJ787
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J1. The prayer in all these Original Petitions which are filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Kerala and the Director General of Police to entrust the investigation of Crime No. 282/1997 of the Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode to the Central Bureau of Investigation and for other reliefs. Since the facts and reliefs in all these Original Petitions are the same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment treating O.P. 18484 of 1997 as the main petition, so that the fate of other petitions will depend upon the decision in O.P. 18484 of 1997. If O.P. 18484 of 1997 is dismissed, other petitions will also stand dismissed and vice-versa.2. O.P. 18484 of 1997-A. The petitioner herein alleges the occurrence of a sex scandal in which a lady by name Sreedevi, owner of an Ice Cream Parlour procured girls for important politicians, bureau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1999CriLJ1286
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. T. V. Prabhakaran and Mr. T. Ravikumar for the appellant; Mr. P. Gopalakrishnan Nair for the first respondent and Mr. Antony Dominic for the third respondent.2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of C. S. Rajan, J. in OP 7862 of 1998 dated 15-6-1998 dismissing the Original Petition filed by the appellant to quash Ext P 1 authorising Mr. Kallada Siikumaran, Director General of Prosecution (third respondent herein) as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution in the Court of Special Judge at Ernakulam in the cases charged in connection with Crime No. 455/ Cr/88 investigated into and charge-sheeted by the Special Squad for Idamalayar Investigation, Trivandrum. The said appointment was made by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code') and in supersession of the Notification No, 185()7/SSA2/97/Home dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1999)ILLJ978Ker
Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. By consent of all parties, both the Original Petition and the Writ Appeals were taken up for final disposal. Aggrieved by the order issued by that respondents in the Original Petition removing him from service solely for the reason that he was convicted in a criminal case, against which an appeal is pending and sentence suspended, the petitioner, B. Muraleedharan Nair, preferred the above original petition. The petitioner is the appellant in both the Writ Appeals. The appeals are preferred against interim orders passed by the learned single Judge in O.P. 16834 of 1997 filed by on Mr. K. Mohanan, who is the first respondent in both the Writ Appeals.2. While working as Sub Inspector of Police, Mannar Police Station, a private, complaint was filed against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chengannur alleging offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was numbered as CC 91 of 1992 . The learned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (2000)ILLJ1268Ker
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. N. Nadakumara Menon for appellant and Mr. P.G. Parameswara Panicker for respondents.2. The unsuccessful Writ Petitioner is the appellant herein. The Original Petition was filed by the appellant challenging Ext. P8 order passed by the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Ernakulam discharging the appellant from the service of the Bank and seeking a direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of his dismissal, and other allied reliefs.3. The appellant, while working as Clerk-cum-Typist in the 1st respondent Bank, was prosecuted pursuant to a complaint filed by his wife, for the charge of an offence punishable under Section 498A of 'the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as 'I.P.C.'). Section 498A PC deals with the offence of cruelty by husband or his relatives. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous...
Tag this Judgment!