M.K.Thankachan vs The Kerala State Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8666 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.6680 OF 2021(H)


PETITIONER:

               M.K.THANKACHAN
               AGED 55 YEARS
               S/O.KUMARAN, VEHICLE SUPERVISOR, KERALA STATE ROAD
               TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VENJARAMOOD DEPOT (RESIDING AT
               MUNDUKATTIL, KUMBALANGY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
               PIN-682007).

               BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
               REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST
               FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

      2        THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
               KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
               BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

      3        THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE),
               KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
               BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

      4        THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION),
               KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
               BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695023.

      5        THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
               KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VENJARAMOOD
               DEPOT-695607.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SC,SRI.DEEPU THANKAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6680 OF 2021(H)

                                    2


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of March 2021

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been under

suspension since 22.02.2021 and the enquiry proceedings

are not concluded. Against the suspension order, he has

preferred a statutory appeal as Ext.P5. The petitioner

challenges the suspension order.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.R.T.C.

In the light of the pendency of the statutory appeal, I

feel that the writ petition itself is not sustainable. However,

I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to

the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 appeal, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one

month from the date of service of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/16-3 WP(C).No.6680 OF 2021(H)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.VLC3-

00624/2021 DATED 22.02.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT "MUHAMMED VS STATE OF KERALA" (1997(2)KLT 394).

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT "MATHEW VS. STATE OF KERALA"

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT "S.PRASANTH VS.KSRTC" )W.P.(C)NO.22142/2019 DATED 01.10.2019).

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL PETITIONER, DATED 03.03.2021.

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE