Abhilash S vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1796 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
      WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 27TH MAGHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 30797 OF 2018
PETITIONER:

           ABHILASH S., AGED 45 YEARS,
           CONDUCTOR GRADE II, KERALA STATE RAOD TRANSPORT
           CORPORATION, MAVELIKKARA DEPOT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

           BY ADVS.
           P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
           S.VIBHEESHANAN
           K.SUDHINKUMAR
           MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD
           SABU PULLAN

RESPONDENTS:

           KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
     1     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANGING DIRECTOR,
           TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024.

           THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATION),
     2     KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
           TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 024.

           THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
           OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
     3
           KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
           MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA 690 101.

           BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN
 W.P.(Civil). No.30797 of 2018          2



OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SC, KSRTC

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.02.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(Civil). No.30797 of 2018                       3

                                VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
                           ..............................................
                         W.P.(Civil). No.30797 of 2018
                   ...............................................................
                  Dated this the 16th day of February, 2022

                                       JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P5 order dated

30.12.2017 whereby the service of the petitioner as Conductor Grade II was

terminated by the respondents. Petitioner was appointed as an empaneled

conductor on 10.05.2015 as per Exhibit P1 order and subsequently, his service

was regularized in the year 2010 and thereafter he was promoted as Conductor

Grade II. While working as Conductor Grade II, the petitioner became ill and

could not attend his duty from 18.10.2014 and due to physical problems he

could not submit leave application and that later leave application was sent by

post to the 3rd respondent. While so, Exhibit P2 memo dated 21.11.2016 was

issued directing the petitioner to join duty on or before 01.12.2016, failing

which his service will be terminated without further notice. Based on Exhibit P2

memo, Exhibit P3 letter dated 26.11.2016 was also issued to the petitioner. In

response to the same petitioner submitted Exhibit P4 reply. Petitioner contended

that even without considering Exhibit P4 reply and without conducting an

enquiry, service of the petitioner was terminated as per Exhibit P5. Challenging

Exhibit P5 order of termination petitioner submitted Exhibit P6 appeal dated

18.01.2018.

2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation

fairly submitted that since Exhibit P5 order has been issued without conducting

an enquiry, they are prepared to reconsider the matter and finalize the same

after initiating disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law.

3. This Court had occasion to consider a similar matter in which the

service of the petitioner therein was terminated without initiating any

disciplinary proceedings and this court as per judgment dated 11.08.2021 in

W.P.C. No. 23031 of 2020 set aside the order of termination granting liberty to

the respondent Corporation to take steps in accordance with the law by holding

an enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing.

4. Since a major penalty of termination from service has been imposed on

the petitioner as per Exhibit P5 order, the same ought to have been taken only

after conducting a disciplinary enquiry as mandated by law. I am in full

agreement with the decision of this court in W.P.C. No. 23031 of 2020.

Accordingly, I set aside Exhibit P5 order of termination by granting liberty to

the respondent Corporation to initiate fresh proceedings after conducting a

disciplinary enquiry in accordance with the law. The respondent Corporation

shall finalize the proceedings within a period of 5 months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

pm

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30797/2018

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO EXHIBIT P1 THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 10-

05-2005

TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 21-11-2016

+TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FIVEN BY THE 3RD EXHIBIT P3 RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26-11-2016

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 RECEIVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 1-11-2016

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PL-19/004772/2017 DATED EXHIBIT P5 30-12-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY EXHIBIT P6 THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18-01-2018

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE 3RD EXHIBIT P7 RESPONDENT DATED 9-5-2018

TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14-05-2018