S. Vinod Kumar vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 639 Ker

WP(C) NO. 1239 OF 2022          1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
    FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 1239 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          S. VINOD KUMAR
          AGED 41 YEARS
          S/O. SREEKUMARAN NAIR, VALLATHALA VEEDU, VENPAKAL
          P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695123 (CONDUCTOR,
          KSRTC, VELLARADA DEPOT).

          BY ADV N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN



RESPONDENTS:

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

    2     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION),
          KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
          695023.

    3     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE),
          KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
          695023.

    4     DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
          KSRTC, VELLARADA DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-
          695125.




          SRI KEERTHIVAS GIRI, SC




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 1239 OF 2022                2



                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that while working as a Conductor in the KSRTC, the

1st respondent herein, he was suspended for his unauthorised absence. He was

in fact tending to his sick wife and had submitted an application for leave.

Later, by Exts.P2 and P3 orders, the disciplinary proceedings were closed by

treating his absence as Leave Without Allowance. The grievance of the

petitioner is that he is still being kept out of service. Narrating his grievances,

the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 1st

respondent, which is stated to be pending. The prayer in this writ petition is for

a direction to the 1st respondent to readmit the petitioner or in the alternative,

to issue directions to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 and take a decision.

2. I have heard Sri.N.Sasidharan Unnithan, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned standing

counsel.

3. 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) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider

and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, 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) 1239/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER SMT.MINU, ISSUED FROM THE S.K.HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.VLD2/019942/16 DATED 26.11.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.VLD2/17895/17 DATED 25.11.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.12.2021 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.