By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1.The complaint in short is follows: -
The complainant was the Secretary of the opposite party and she joined
in service on 02/06/2008. The complainant was suspended from the service on 26-11-2015 and subsequently she was terminated from the service on 26-05-2017. The opposite party made believe the complainant that her suspension from the service was a short-term procedure and also as part of joint liability and she was assured that she will be taken back in service within short period. Thereafter the complainant approached Co-operative Arbitration Court at Calicut challenging the suspension procedure through the ARC No. 25/2018 and the Arbitration court found that the action taken by the opposite party was illegal and so the action of the opposite party set aside. The opposite party requested the complainant to deposit some amount since the opposite party required some money and assured to refund the same within short period. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,75,000/- before the opposite party on 28/11/2015. Thereafter the complainant requested to refund the amount several occasions but the opposite party refused to issue the amount to the complainant.
2. The complainant submitted that she was never responsible for the illegal transactions took place in the opposite party, but the opposite party was trying to protect the henchmen of opposite party. The direction to deposit some amount before the opposite party was a trap against the complainant. The opposite party despite releasing the deposited amount issued receipt for the payment. The complainant is in financial difficulty and the persons from whom the complainant managed the money to deposit before the opposite party demanding the amount from the complainant at present. The complainant approached with a petition before the opposite party on 12/03/2020 to release the amount within ten days. But the opposite party so far not refund the amount which amounts unfair trade practice and dereliction of duty from the side of opposite party. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to refund Rs. 1,75,000/- and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and also cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and opposite party entered appearance on receipt of notice. The opposite party received notice duly directing to appear on 24/08/2021 before the Commission. But the opposite party filed version with petition after a delay of 328 days. So, there is no reason to accept version of the opposite party in the light of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Hilly multipurpose old Storage Private Limited 1(2016) CPJ 1(SC). Hence the opposite party set exparte.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and documents.Documents marked as Ext.A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is receipt for Rs. 1,75,000/- (date is not legible) issued by the opposite party. Ext.A2 is Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 12/03/2020. Ext. A3 is copy of award in ARC 25/2018. Ext. A4 is copy of order WP(C) No.2826 of 2022 dated 21/02/2022, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Ext. A5 is the copy of order by opposite party dated 10/03/2022. Ext.A6 is copy of order by opposite party dated 16/03/2022.
5. Heard the complainant and perused the documents.
6. The complainant is none other than the former Secretary of the opposite party. She is under suspension as per the Ext.A6. The claim of the complaint is that she had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- before the opposite party as per Ext.A1. Since no version has been filed by the opposite party in due time, there is no contra evidence against the case of the complainant. But at the same time the documents produced by the complainant itself shows that there was some malpractice took place in the opposite party while she was the secretary of the opposite party and presently facing the disciplinary actions. The allegation and malpractices are including financial anomalies. So, the claim of complainant cannot be taken as Bonafede one. Complainant not approached the Commission with clean hands. It is the cardinal principle of law that who seeks justice must do justice and for seeking justice if he goes to courts he should go with true facts and clean hands. If the facts are incorrect and hands are not clean, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. The perusal of documents produced by the complainant itself appears the hands of the complainant is not clean to consider the prayer in the complaint. The complainant deposited the amount with opposite party just after two days of her suspension. Complainant was suspended from service on 26/11/2015 and the amount was deposited on 28/11/2015. Hence, the complainant is permitted to approach appropriate authority duly with sufficient documents in due time. The commission is not inclined to allow the complaint as prayed. The complaint stands dismissed. No cost.
Dated this 20thday of February, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A6
Ext. A1: Receipt for Rs. 1,75,000/- (date is not legible) issued by the opposite party. Ext. A2:Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 12/03/2020. Ext. A3: Copy of award in ARC 25/2018.
Ext. A4: Copy of order WP(C) No.2826 of 2022 dated 21/02/2022, Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala.
Ext. A5: Copy of order by opposite party dated 10/03/2022.
Ext. A6: Copy of order by opposite party dated 16/03/2022.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party :Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party :Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
