Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
K.J. JOSEPH – Respondent
WA NO. 676 OF 2025 | W.P.(C) NO. 11187 OF 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.T.K.SAJEEV
For the Respondents: Shri.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, Sri.ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN, Smt.SHERINA MEERAN, Shri.R.SREEDHAR
The duration of a penalty for reduction in rank must be fixed, adhering to statutory provisions when not specified by the employer.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The provisions of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960 apply to the case at hand to regulate the length of a penalty of reduction in rank. Facts of the Case: The respondent, originally dismissed in 2002, was re-instated with penalties, leading to a Writ Petition for appropriate relief against the corporation.
Findings of Court:
The Single Judge's directions were upheld, supporting a six-month limit for reduction.
Issues: The primary question was whether the penalty period was appropriately determined under applicable rules governing the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The period of reduction must not exceed six months as per Rule 11(1)(v) since no explicit duration was set by the corporation.
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947 WA NO. 676 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.11187 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S:
KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, KOCHI, PIN - 682016 BY ADV SRI.T.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT/S:
K.J. JOSEPH, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. LATE MR. K.M. JOSEPH, FORMER REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, 10/491, KADAVIPARAMBIL, AMARAVATHI, KOCHI-682001, C/O. DR. VALSAMMA K.M., RESIDING AT UNIVERSITY QUARTERS, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THAVANUR, PIN - 679573 BY ADVS.
SHRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN SMT.SHERINA MEERAN SHRI.R.SREEDHAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.10.2025, THE COURT ON 30.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI &
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
….......................................
WA No.676 of 2025 …............................................................. Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025 JUDGMENT P.V. Balakrishnan , J.
This intra-court appeal is preferred by the respondent in W.P.(C)No.11187 of 2019 challenging the judgment dated
17.02.2025 allowing the writ petition.
2. W.P.(C)No.11187 of 2019 is filed by the respondent herein seeking the following reliefs:
a) Declare that the minor penalty of reversion imposed on the petitioner can only be for a period of 6 months in the absence of any specific period fixed by the competent authority;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to grant due promotions to the petitioner with all consequential benefits;
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release all arrears of revised salary, gratuity with interest, leave encashment benefits to the petitioner.
3. The case of the respondent herein/petitioner is that while he was working as a Regional Manager with the appellant, he was dismissed from service on 09.09.2002, on the allegation that he was on unauthorized absence. He challenged the dismissal by filing W.P.(C) No. 28739 of 2005 before this Court. As per judgment dated 20.01.2016, the writ petition was allowed, and the penalty imposed on the respondent was ordered to be "reduced to the next lower post in his permanent class and deemed to have continued till his retirement at the age of 60 years." The appellant challenged Ext. P1 by filing W.A. No. 990 of 2016. This Court, by judgment dated 23.06.2016, upheld the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge, but clarified that the salary and allowance need be paid to the respondent only from the date of his dismissal, till the date on which he attained the age of 58 years, instead of 60 years. After the judgment, the appellant took a stand that since the respondent had already retired on 31.05.2010, the benefits had to be calculated in the post of Deputy Manager (the lower/reduced post)for the entire period, i.e., from post-dismissal, till the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years. It is aggrieved by the said finding;
the respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 11187 of 2019.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition and gave the following directions:
''i) The respondent to pass appropriate orders by limiting the reduction in rank as ordered in Exts.P1/P2 by applying the provisions of Rule 11 (1) (v) by limiting the same to a period of six months from the date of dismissal –
09.09.2002.
ii) The respondent to rework the petitioner’s retiral benefits by applying the afore modifications.
iii) The respondent to notionally grant promotion to the post of the Manager, w.e.f. 19.04.2005, in view of the promotion granted on that date to the junior to the petitioner.
iv) The respon
