Aliyar V.A vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7422 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

           ALIYAR V.A., AGED 56 YEARS,
           S/O. ADIMA, (DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
           CORPORATION, KOTHAMANGALAM DEPOT, RETIRED ON
           31/07/2021), RESIDING AT VADAKKAN HOUSE,
           NEAR VAZHAYIL TEMPLE, MUDIKKAL P.O.,
           PERUMBAVOOR-683547.

           BY ADVS.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
           A.JOSEPH GEORGE (AZHIKKAKATH)


RESPONDENTS:

    1      KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
           EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

    2      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
           KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
           BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

    3      THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION),
           KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
           BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

    4      THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE),
           KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
           BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

    5      THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
           KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
           KOTHAMANGALAM DEPOT, PIN-689691.

           SRI. DEEPU THANKAN-SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2022
                                 -2-

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P3, which is an

order terminating him from the services of the

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)

with effect from 01.06.2018, on the allegation

that he has been on unauthorized absence from

27.10.2014.

2. I do not propose to enter into the merits

of the rival contentions of the parties in this

case, since, admittedly, the petitioner has an

effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal

against this order.

3. However, I must certainly record that it

is the specific contention of the petitioner, as

argued by his learned counsel - Sri.K.P.Justine,

that Ext.P3 was neither preceded by any enquiry,

nor did the competent Authority consider Ext.P6,

which is the Certificate issued by a hospital to

show that he was completely paralytic on account WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2022

of a stroke. Normally, in such cases, a person

could have removed from service only through an

enquiry, but in exceptional circumstances, when

the absenteeism is without reason and for long

period of time, it is also open that such

proceedings are completed summarily.

4. That said, in this case, the petitioner

says that he produced Ext.P6 Medical Certificate

and I am, therefore, of the firm view that the

Appellate Authority must consider this aspect also

and verify whether the punishment now imposed upon

him is proportionate, taking note of the factual

circumstances.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition,

leaving liberty to the petitioner to approach the

competent Appellate Authority against Ext.P3

through an appropriate appeal; and if this is done

within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2022

be considered on its merits, including on the

question whether the punishment imposed against

him needs to be reviewed, so that at least

pensionary benefits, with respect to the periods

earlier served by the petitioner in the services

of the KSRTC, can be reckoned as a special case.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the

Appellate Authority within a period of three

months from the date on which the appeal is

received in terms of the afore liberty reserved to

the petitioner.

I, however, deem it necessary to make it clear

that this Court has not spoken affirmatively on

the afore, and it is upto the Appellate Authority

to decide all aspects in terms of law, appositely.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7049/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.2.2022 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM TO THE PETITIONER VIDE NO. VLE2- 016283/14 DATED 18.9.2014.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PL 11/000806/2018 DATED 09-09-2020

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT AS REPORTED IN 1970 (3) SCC

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO. 30883/2019

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 1.3.2021 ISSUED BY DR.SREERAM PRASAD A.V.OF LOURDES HOSPITAL ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.8.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO. 23031/2020.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.1.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE R2.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2022 IN W.P.(C). NO. 9066/2021

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.2.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. PL7/ 000175/10 DATED 27.12.2014 ISSUED BY WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2022

THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT IN GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER VS. N.RAMANAIAH(2009) 7 SSC 165)

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE