Rajesh C vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4512 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.32954 OF 2019(T)


PETITIONER/S:

                RAJESH C
                AGED 45 YEARS
                S/O.M.CHELLAN RESERVE CONDUCTOR,
                KANJANGAD DEPOT,RESIDING AT KOTTOPPARA
                HOUSE,PALLAMPADAM,
                VANDAZHI,PALAKKAD-678706.

                BY ADV. SHRI.SABU M. PHILIP

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                TRANSPORT BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

      2         THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT
                BHAWAN,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

      3         EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(VIGILANCE),
                KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT
                BHAWAN,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

      4         INSPECTOR SQ 20,
                KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,KASARAGOD
                DEPOT,
                KASARAGOD-671121.

                R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.32954 OF 2019(T)

                                  2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of February 2021

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition vis a vis

Ext.P6 dated 17.9.2019 treating his suspension as Reserve

Conductor as 'out of service' i.e. kept away from duty. The facts

leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in Kerala State

Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) on 22.12.2018 at the age

of 44 years. While working ATM 286 Ksaragod-Thrissur Limited

Stop Fast Passenger, while returning from Trissur at about 6.40

PM, a car bearing No.KL-56 M Model Maruti Suzuki Celerio hit

the bus at got damaged in the accident. Such incident, police

procedure and the long hours of work caused immense mental

pressure on him. When the bus reached Payyannur at about 11

PM and the petitioner counted only Six (6) passengers in the

bus. He alighted from the bus, went to the Station Masters

office and recorded the time and came back through the front

door and as usual course called out to the passengers to take WP(C).No.32954 OF 2019(T)

tickets who had not taken tickets, but nobody responded. The

petitioner recounted the passengers and found only (6) and his

ticket machine also showed (6). But when the bus reached at

Pallikkara, Fare Stage B 35, Inspector Sri.P. Gireesan, Special

Squad 20 boarded the bus and on inspection found a passenger

from Payyannur (Fare Stage 33) to Kanhagad without ticket.

Based on the report of the Inspector, the petitioner was

suspended from service on 17.4.2019, vide Order Ext.P1.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

suspension order clearly mentioned the applicability of Rule Rule

55 Part 1 of KSR. The aforementioned Rules envisages

subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. He was

served with charge sheet, which was duly replied by the

petitioner. On 28.8.2019, was reinstated in service vide Ext.P5.

Consequently as per the order the respondent No.2 dated

17.9.2019, the suspension order was modified as 'kept away

from duty' retrospectively from 17.4.2019 and not eligible for

subsistence allowance, which according to the petitioner is not

permissible under law. According to the petitioner, the

respondent instead of adhering to payment of subsistence

allowance deliberately converted the suspension order into "kept WP(C).No.32954 OF 2019(T)

away from duty".

3. On the contrary, Smt.Lakshmi, learned Counsel

appearing for the KSRTC submitted that petitioner was not a

regular employee, but was a reserve conductor on daily wages

for 240 days. As the petitioner was working only as a daily wage

reserve conductor on that particular date, he was not entitled to

get benefit of subsistence allowance as provided under Rule 55

of Part 1 of KSR. Ext.P1 order was issued on a mistaken fact that

he was a regular employee and later on realizing the mistake the

suspension order was modified vide Ext.P6 order. New case has

been attempted to be made by way of rejoinder and annexing

some documents challenging his appointment and appointment

of other persons and the petitioner cannot co-relate the cause of

action by way of rejoinder and prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

4. I have heard the parties and appraised the paper

books.

5. The factum of appointment of petitioner as a reserve

conductor has not been denied in the reply nor any document

reflecting his appointment to be a regular has been placed on

record. Inadvertence can always be corrected by passing order WP(C).No.32954 OF 2019(T)

as has been done in present case. If at all the petitioner is

aggrieved qua appointment he would have filed a separate case

but,cannot be permitted to take the aid of Rule 55 of Part 1 of

KSR in absence regular appointment. No ground of interference

is made out invoking the powers conferred under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

Jm/ WP(C).No.32954 OF 2019(T)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 17.4.19

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20.5.19.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE MEMO DATED 21.8.19.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO CHARGE MEMO DATED 3.9.19

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT DATED 28.8.19

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.9.19 MODIFYING THE SUSPENSION ORDER

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PIO LETTER NO.0551/19 DATED 26/27.6.19

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF RTI DOCUMENT NO.G1/4909/19 DATED 6.9.19

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF PIO PIO LETTER NO.A3/16015/18

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PIO LETTER NO.678/2019 DATED 6.8.19

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.16472/2019 DATED 22.10.2019 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.