Bijish.V.M vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1643 Ker

WP(C) NO. 15369 OF 2021        1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 15369 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          BIJISH.V.M
          AGED 45 YEARS
          S/O.MANI, DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
          CORPORATION, THRISSUR DEPOT, (RESIDING AT
          VATTOMPARAMBIL HOUSE), ANJOOR P.O., MUNDOOR-680 541,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT).

          BY ADV K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)



RESPONDENTS:

    1     KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
          REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

          TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,

          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023

    2     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

          TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,

          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023

    3     THE HON'BLE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF KERALA STATE ROAD
          TRANSPORT CORPORATION
          AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 035

    4     THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE)
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

          TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,

          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023
 WP(C) NO. 15369 OF 2021          2

     5       THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
             KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

             TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,

             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 023
     6       THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
             KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

             THRISSUR DEPOT-680 001

             BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN,SC




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   15.02.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15369 OF 2021                 3

                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is working as a Driver in the KSRTC

attached to Thrissur Depot. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against

him on the basis of an anonymous complaint. The petitioner was initially

placed under suspension and on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings,

he was imposed with a punishment of increment bar for a period of one year

with cumulative effect. The said order was challenged by the petitioner

before the appellate authority. By Ext.P1 order, the punishment imposed by

the disciplinary authority was confirmed. Challenging the order passed by

the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority, the

petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Appellate Tribunal. By

Ext.P2 order which is dated 29.04.2017, the revisional authority allowed the

revision holding as follows:

"In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority that the revision petitioner is guilty of the charge levelled against him is confirmed. The punishment of increment bar for one year with cumulative effect imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and a modified order is passed imposing punishment of increment bar for one year temporary (ie. without cumulative effect) coupled with the order for regulating the period of suspension as eligible leave."

2. The petitioner contends that though the punishment of increment

bar for one year with cumulative effect was set aside and a modified order

was passed imposing punishment of increment bar for a period of one year

temporarily (without cumulative effect), the said order has not been given

effect to by the respondents. In the said circumstances, he has preferred

Ext.P3 representation before the 4th respondent. The prayer in this writ

petition is for a direction to consider Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P2 order and

take a decision.

3. Heard Sri.Justine K.P, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for

the respondents.

4. It is submitted by Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing

counsel appearing for the respondents that Ext.P3 was submitted by the

petitioner on 13.11.2020 and if the same has not been disposed of to date,

steps shall be taken to dispose of the same.

5. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by

issuing the following directions:

a) If Ext.P3 has not been taken up and disposed of to date by the 4th

respondent, the said authority shall consider the same and pass

appropriate orders in the light of Ext.P2, after affording an

opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the

petitioner herein or his authorised representative.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any

event, within a period of two months from the date of production

of a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ

petition along with the judgment before the concerned

respondent for further action.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15369/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
                    NO.D.DIS.5958/14/APL DATED 29.9.2015

Exhibit P2          TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED
                    29.4.2017 IN R.P.NO. 3/2016

Exhibit P3          TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
                    13.11.2020