Chairman And Managing Director vs Deepesh V.K
2021 Latest Caselaw 20121 Ker

R.P.No.611 of 2021 in W.P(C).7567/2021
                                            1


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                         PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
     FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
                               RP NO. 611 OF 2021
              (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
                  W.P(C).NO.7567/2021 DATED 08.04.2021)
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

      1        CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD
               TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
               695023

      2        EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE
               ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               - 695023

      3        ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD
               TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ATTINGAL DEPOT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023

               BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN



RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

               DEEPESH V.K, PULIYOTH HOUSE, MUCHUKUNNU P O,
               KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE - 673 307 (EX-DRIVER, KSRTC,
               ATTINGAL DEPOT)


       THIS    REVIEW     PETITION       HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.611 of 2021 in W.P(C).7567/2021
                                           2


                                         ORDER

This review petition is filed on the premise that, this Court while

disposing of the Writ Petition did not notice the decision reported in

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited v. Mahesh

Dahiya [2017(1) SCC 768], by which, the right of employer to

proceed against the employee by conducting appropriate enquiry was

not reserved.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the review petitioners

and the learned counsel for the respondent, I feel that, review

petitioners are justified in pointing out this.

3. Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of with a

direction that the judgment in W.P(C).No.7567 of 2021 will not restrict

the right of the review petitioners to proceed with appropriate

disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law against the respondent

herein. Consequently, review petitioners shall comply with the

directions contained in the judgment within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Review Petition is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna/