The charges in disciplinary proceedings must be specific and definite, capable of being answered by the accused.

JUDGMENT :

The jurisdictional limits of this Court and its contours, when being called upon to consider the merits of Charge Sheets and Statements of Allegations issued against an employee by his/her employer, proposing disciplinary action; particularly when they are sought to be quashed, has been impelled for assessment in this writ petition.

2. These two writ petitions have been filed by the same individual, who is presently serving the ‘Pharmaceutical Corporation Kerala Ltd’. (‘Corporation’ for short), as its General Manager (P & A).

3. Through the first among the afore writ petitions, namely WP(C)No.15128 of 2023, the petitioner assails the Memo of Charges issued by the Corporation, imputing certain instances of misconduct and misdemeanor against him -a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P3; which is also accompanied by a Statement of Allegations dated 28.02.2023. He contends that both the Memo of Charges and the Statement of Allegations are illegal and unlawful, particularly because, through the latter, he is also ordered to be placed under suspension with effect from its date, namely 28.02.2023.

4. The petitioner says that while so, another order has been issued by the Corporation, intriguingly placing him under suspension again; and therefore, that he has been constrained to assail it through WP(C)No.2220/2023, producing the same as Ext.P2.

5. The petitioner thus calls into question the Memo of Charges and the Statement of Allegations; as also the subsequent order of suspension, as being motivated, vitiated, illegal and unconstitutional.

6. I have heard Sri.P.Ravidran, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Lakshmi Ramdas – appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.2220/2023; Sri.Elvin Peter – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.15128/2023; Sri.K.Anand, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Latha Anand – learned Standing Counsel for the “Corporation”; Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Keerthi.M. -learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in WP(C)No.2220/2023 and the 2nd respondent in WP(C)No.15128/2023.

7. A glance through the pleadings of these two cases which are without much of contest -would indicate that the “Corporation” initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner, on receiving certain information from two other persons -who will hereinafter be referred collectively as “Informants” -and on the basis of a letter dated 07.01.2023 issued by such persons – which, it is stated, was presented before its Board of Directors (“Board” for ease hereinafter) in its meeting of the said day.

8. It transpires that the “Board” immediately resolved to cause an enquiry into the allegations impelled by the ‘informants’ in their aforementioned letter against the petitioner; and that resultantly, the impugned Memo of Charges dated 28.02.2023, accompanied by the Statement of Allegations of the same date, were issued to him.

9. Interestingly, in the Statement of Allegations, all which the “Corporation” has said is that petitioner has committed gross misconduct, as mentioned in the Memo of Charges, which will attract severe punishment; and hence that ‘it is decided to suspend him from service’ and to conduct an enquiry in such regard.

10. Presumably in furtherance of the afore, Ext.P2 in WP(C)No.2220/2013 was issued on 11.01.2023, suspending the petitioner, imputing allegations which are verbatim reproduction of the Memo of Charges earlier issued to him.

11. Sri.P.Ravindran – learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the actions initiated by the “Corporation” against his client are wholly malicious because, it would become limpidly discernible from various materials on record that the “Board” of the Corporation was acting in a preconceived manner, so as to trap and deracinate him. He explained that, going by the Memo of Charges and various other documents produced by the “Corporation” itself on record particularly the alleged letter of the “informants” marked