Dileep Kumar K G vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21763 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
    TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 23921 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     DILEEP KUMAR K G
          AGED 39 YEARS
          DRIVER GRADE II, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
          CORPORATION (KSRTC), ERNAKULAM DEPOT, ERNAKULAM
          DISTRICT, PIN 682 011
    2     A X ROBY
          DRIVER GRADE II, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
          CORPORATION (KSRTC), ERNAKULAM DEPOT, ERNAKULAM
          DISTRICT, PIN 682 011
          BY ADVS.
          V.PREMCHAND
          SURYA MOHAN P.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KSRTC
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023
    2     CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
          BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023
    3     THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
          BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023
    4     DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM
          DEPOT,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682 011


          BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SC KSRTC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                        2
W.P.(C)No.23921 of 2021




                                JUDGMENT

The petitioners are employed as Drivers in the Kerala State

Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). Alleging certain

irregularities on the part of the petitioners in diverting the bus

from the scheduled route, they were issued with Ext.P4

memorandum by the 3rd respondent. Petitioners approached the

2nd respondent and as per the endorsement made on Ext.P2

representation filed by the 1st respondent, it appears that the 2nd

respondent has stated that the petitioners can be pardoned by

issuing warning memo. This endorsement is dated 19/4/2021.

However, later the petitioners were issued with Ext.P4

memorandum transferring the 1st petitioner from Ernakulam

Depot to Kannur Depot and the 2nd petitioner from Ernakulam

Depot to Thalassery Depot in Kannur District, alleging the

aforesaid charges of dereliction of duty with regard to change of

route deviating from the schedule. Pursuant to Ext.P4 the

petitioners were issued with Ext.P5 dated 13/9/2021 stating

W.P.(C)No.23921 of 2021

that the action of the petitioners in deviating from the schedule

route amounts to serious dereliction of duty and as part of

disciplinary proceedings the petitioners are transferred to

Kannur and Thalassery respectively and are relieved from duty.

Exts.P4 and P5 orders are impugned in this writ petition. The

petitioners have prayed to quash Exts.P4 and P5 and to retain

them at Ernakulam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned standing counsel for the KSRTC.

3. The petitioners submit that, against Exts.P4 and P5

they had preferred Ext.P6 representation before the 2 nd

respondent and the 2nd respondent has made an endorsement

on Ext.P6 to cancel Ext.P4. However, no consequential

proceedings are issued pursuant thereto. Petitioners submit that

they have preferred Exts.P7 and P8 representations against

Exts.P4 and P5.

4. The limited prayer of the petitioners is for a direction

to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P7 and P8 representations

W.P.(C)No.23921 of 2021

submitted by them against Exts.P4 and P5 with due reference to

the endorsements made by the 2 nd respondent on Exts.P2, P3

and P6 representations.

In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be a

direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P7 and P8

representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with

law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of the judgment. It is made clear that this court has not

expressed any opinion on the merits of Exts.P7 and P8.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ska

W.P.(C)No.23921 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23921/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 09-

4-2021 PREPARED BY THE KSRTC VIGILANCE SQUAD

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19-04-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY THE PETITION DATED 19-04-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 17-06-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4 Exhibit P5A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-09-

2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P6A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05-10-2021 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P 7 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18-10-2021 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P8