Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.MOHANABALAN,GENERAL MANAGER(MARKETING versus THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.MOHANABALAN,GENERAL MANAGER(MARKETING v. THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION - WA No. 1603 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11828 (3 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1603 of 2007()

1. C.MOHANABALAN,GENERAL MANAGER(MARKETING
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
... Respondent

2. R.SREEDHARAN,

3. J.VIJAYA MOHANAN,

4. A.VINOBHAN,

5. MRS.M.ALBERTIN,

6. LT.COL.(RETD.)K.G.RAMACHANDRAN,

7. D.SREEKUMAR,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.RAVINDRAN

For Respondent :SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :03/07/2007

O R D E R

K.S.Radhakrishnan &

Antony Dominic, JJ.


========================
W.A.No.1603 of 2007
========================

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2007.



JUDGMENT

Radhakrishnan,J.

We find it unnecessary to consider the various contentions raised by the petitioner. Complaint of the petitioner is that the Managing Director has misled the Executive Committee in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Further he has also stated that the Managing Director did not place the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner before the Executive Committee. Counsel also referred to the provisions of the Act as well as the Regulations and submitted that the Managing Director has no power to initiate any action against a Class I Officer. We are of the view that this matter cannot be examined by this Court at this stage of proceedings. If there is any irregularity or illegality in the procedure followed, the petitioner can raise at the appropriate time before the appropriate forum. Already WA 1603/07 -: 2 :- six sittings are over in the proceedings initiated by the Enquiry Commissioner. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the proceedings already initiated. Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.S.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Antony Dominic, Judge. ess 3/7


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.