Mathew T vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6378 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 12115 OF 2022


PETITIONER:

            MATHEW T, S/O. THOMAS OUSEPH, DRIVER,
            KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
            VENJARAMOODU DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
            RESIDING AT MANGALATHULI HOUSE,
            MUTTATHIPARAM P.O., CHERTHALA,
            ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 527

            BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1       KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KSRTC
            TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
            PIN-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
            MANAGING DIRECTOR

    2       THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
            TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
            PIN-695 001

    3       THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION & VIGILANCE )
            KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
            BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001


            SRI.DEEPU THANKAN - SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 12115/22
                                        2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is now facing termination from the

services of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC

for short), challenges Ext.P8 order issued by its Executive

Director on various grounds, including that said Authority had

no competence to have issued the same.

2. Sri.O.D.Sivadas - learned counsel for the petitioner,

vehemently argued that, going by the Kerala Civil Service

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to

as 'KCS (CCA) Rules' for short), which is applicable to the

KSRTC, the Executive Director obtains no jurisdiction to impose

a punishment of termination from service and therefore, that

Ext.P8 is incompetent. On the merits of the matter, he argued

that, after Ext.P4 Enquiry Report had been settled, the

Disciplinary Authority - who he concedes to be the Executive

Director - could not have continued with the proceedings and

ought to have exonerated his client and thus argued that, on

such ground also, the processes are illegal. WPC 12115/22

3. However, in contravention, Sri.Deepu Thankan -

learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, took objection to the

maintainability of this Writ Petition contending that petitioner

obtains a statutory, alternative and efficacious remedy. He

submitted that without invoking the same, the petitioner could

not have approached this Court to challenge Ext.P8 directly.

4. After saying as afore, Sri.Deepu Thankan submitted

that, in any event of the matter, the Executive Director -

admittedly being the Disciplinary Authority - was competent to

issue Ext.P8 order particularly because, through Ext.R1(a), the

Managing Director had authorised him for such action on a

general basis. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be

dismissed.

5. I must say upfront that this Court will not be justified

in entering into the merits of the disciplinary proceedings against

the petitioner since he, admittedly, has an alternative, statutory

remedy against the same. However, the justification offered by

Sri.O.D.Sivadas in having approached this Court directly is

because Ext.P8 is void ab initio, it having not been issued by the WPC 12115/22

competent Authority.

6. Prima facie, I cannot find cause to accept this,

particularly in view of Ext.R1(a), but I do not propose to speak

on this in detail, lest it may prejudice the alternative remedies

available to the petitioner. The question whether Ext.R1(a)

authorises the Executive Director to impose a punishment of

termination or otherwise are certainly issues which the petitioner

could have raised before the competent Appellate Authority and I

fail to understand why he had refused to do so, but to approach

this Court directly.

Resultantly, I dispose of this Writ Petition, leaving liberty

to the petitioner to approach the competent Appellate Authority;

and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be considered

by the said Authority on its merits, after affording him an

opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate

order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible

but not later than two months thereafter.

I reiteratingly clarify that this Court has not considered any WPC 12115/22

of the rival contentions on its merits and every germane issue -

be that on the validity of Ext.R1(a) or regarding the competence

of the Executive Director to have issued the punishment of

termination - are all left open to be decided appropriately during

the afore exercise.

Sd/-

RR                                      DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                              JUDGE
 WPC 12115/22


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12115/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED

15.3.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 21.4.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.06.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHARGE MEMO Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT FURNISHED TO THE PETITIONER AS PER PROCEEDING DATED 10.09.2021 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.09.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.10.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R-1(a) True copy of the order dated 30/10/2021.