High Court of KeralaWP(C)/27618/2014disposed of

Rudran v. Sonia

2015-01-12Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/22ND POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 27618 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

--------------------- RUDRAN S/O.N.GOPALAN, GOKULAM VEEDU, P.O. KONGANNUR ATHOLI, KOILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST.

BY SRI. RUDRAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S) :

----------------------------

1. SONIA D/O.SREENIVASAN, ACCOUNTANT KOOTALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.MALAPARAMB, EWS 169 MALAPARAMBU HOUSING COLONY, KOZHIKODE DIST.

PIN - 673 009.

2. ULLIYERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE DIST. PIN - 673 323.

3. ATHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ATHOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE DIST. - 673 315.

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

5. LOCAL FUND DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY AUDITOR, CIVIL STATION P.O.

KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

R1 BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU BY ADVS. SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.AJEESH K.SASI R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHARAM P.

SMT.REKHA ARAVIND R4 & R5 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 27618 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY ATHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SECRETARY, ULLIYERI EXHIBIT P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DDP DATED 24/01/2014.

EXHIBIT P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P5:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/01/2014 TO DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P6:

TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT.

EXHIBIT P7:

TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE VIGILANCE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24/01/2014. EXHIBIT P8:

TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR EXHIBIT P7 COMPLAINANT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

----------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 27618 of 2014 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be given to the 5th respondent to conduct necessary enquiry against the 1st respondent and to take appropriate action against her in connection with the alleged misappropriation of funds.

2. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that, the 1st respondent is none other than the wife of the petitioner and that the marital bond in between seems to have been ruptured to a substantial extent. It is stated that, the petitioner was also working in the Local Self Government Department and retired from the service. The 1st respondent is still working. According to the petitioner, huge misappropriation has been committed by the 1st respondent/wife and this has been brought to the notice of the authorities concerned, but no action has been taken so far and hence the writ petition 3.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the

WP(c). No.27618 of 2014 learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 4 & 5. 4.

It is settled law that there cannot be any Public Interest Litigation, particularly, in connection with the service matter. This writ petition styled as a miscellaneous item, seeks for the relief which in no way affects or speaks about the nexus with the rights and liberties of the petitioner herein. Since the nature of relief sought for appears to be more in the realm of alleged Public Interest, this Court finds it difficult to entertain this writ petition. If any delinquency has been shown by the 1st respondent with regard to her service, no doubt, it has to be proceeded against by the employer/concerned authorities. It is always open for the concerned respondent to proceed against the delinquent employee in connection with the misconduct, if any, and this however cannot give rise to any course of action for the petitioner to prosecute this matter.

Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.