Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.K.V. NAIR, S/O. M.R. KESAVA KURUP versus UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.K.V. NAIR, S/O. M.R. KESAVA KURUP v. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS - WP(C) No. 2411 of 2004(K) [2007] RD-KL 5812 (21 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2411 of 2004(K)

1. M.K.V. NAIR, S/O. M.R. KESAVA KURUP,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent

2. GROUP COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL

3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,

4. INSPECTOR GENERAL, SOUTH WESTERN SECTOR

5. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL

For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.)

For Respondent :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SCGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :21/03/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) NO. 2411 OF 2004

Dated this the 21st day of March, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers.

i) Quash Exhibits P1, P16 and P18 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to reinstate to the petitioner in service with continuity of service, back wages and all other consequential benefits.

2. One of the submissions made by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that this Court at this stage need not go into the disciplinary action which culminated in the termination of service of the petitioner, since the petitioner has a statutory remedy before the fifth respondent. All that the petitioner seeks is only the assistance of a lawyer along with him in pursuing the remedy.

3. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that there is no such provision or precedent of an employee being granted the assistance of a lawyer. In view of the serious contentions taken by the petitioner challenging the disciplinary action both on facts and law, I am of the view that there cannot be any formidable objection in permitting the petitioner to have the assistance of either a departmental employee or a counsel to assist him while arguing the revision. W.P.(C) 2411/2004 2 Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the fifth respondent to consider the revision, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from today, with notice to the petitioner. During the course of hearing, at the option of the petitioner, he shall be permitted to have the assistance of either an employee under the fifth respondent or a counsel. The revision shall be disposed of within another four months. This writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

smp


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.