S. Padmakumar, Counter Clerk/Developing vs The Kerala State Film Development and The Managing Director

S. Siri Jagan, J.—Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the respondents on certain allegations of misconduct. Originally, disciplinary proceedings were completed and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P(C) No. 29364/2008. in the same, by Ext. P1 judgment, I quashed the enquiry proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and directed as follows:

Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P5 are quashed. However, this will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent conducting a de novo enquiry against the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice and taking further action against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings. Fresh action, if any, shall be initiated and completed within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Now, Ext. P2 proceedings have been issued to continue the disciplinary proceedings as permitted in Ext. P1. The petitioner contends that in Ext. P2, the respondents have stated that this Court has, in Ext. P1 judgment, ordered to conduct a fresh enquiry against the petitioner, which is incorrect and this Court only observed that the judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents conducting a de novo enquiry against the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner would contend that because of that stand in Ext. P2, Ext. P2 is vitiated.

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

I am not inclined to interfere with Ext. P2 only on the ground that in Ext. P2 it has been wrongly stated that by Ext. P1 judgment, this Court has ordered to conduct a fresh enquiry. In Ext. P1, it has been specifically stated that Ext. P1 judgment will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent conducting a de novo enquiry and as permitted in that judgment only the de novo proceedings have been initiated, which cannot be said to be vitiated only because of the wrong statement therein that this Court has ordered a de novo enquiry.

Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is not co-operating with the enquiry so as to enable the respondents to complete the enquiry within the time limit prescribed in Ext. P1. He submits that enquiry was ordered on 4.11.2010, on which date the petitioner has sought adjournment and therefore the enquiry was adjourned to 12.11.2010. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

The petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext. P2. He shall be present on all days of the enquiry without asking for adjournment. The enquiry shall be completed within the time stipulated in Ext. P1 judgment. If, because of circumstances not attributable to them, the respondents cannot complete the proceedings within the stipulated time, they may seek extension of time stating reasons therefor.