Kerala High Court
Nusrath Patteeri vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TH
FRIDAY, THE 4 DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 7108 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
NUSRATH PATTEERI
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O MOHAMMED
ASSISTANT GRADE-I, KSRTC, MALAPPURAM DEPOT
RESIDING AT PATTERI HOUSE, VETTILAPARA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM - 673 639, PIN - 673639
BY ADVS.
K.P.SUSMITHA
VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
T.M.KHALID
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023, PIN - 695023
3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023., PIN - 695023
4 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
UP HILL, MALAPPURAM - 676505., PIN - 676505
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 7108 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that while working as Assistant Gr.I in the
Malappuram Depot of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC),
she was placed under suspension on 20.10.2017. Challenging the order of
suspension, the petitioner had approached this Court and had filed W.P.(C) No.
6117/2018 and by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court disposed of the writ petition
directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6
representation treating it as an appeal filed under Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil
Services (CC & A) Rules, 1960 with notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner was reinstated. However, the 3rd respondent passed an order
awarding punishment of censure by treating the period of suspension as
eligible leave. Challenging the said order, an appeal was filed before the 2nd
respondent and when there was delay in hearing the matter, the petitioner
approached this Court and preferred W.P.(C) No.27154/2021 seeking
expeditious disposal of the appeal. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court,
the appeal was heard by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P9 order was passed.
2. The petitioner contends that before passing orders, no opportunity
was granted to the petitioner to advance her contentions. It is further
contended that factual errors have crept into the order thus making it
unsustainable.
WP(C) NO. 7108 OF 2022
3. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this
Court seeking to quash Ext.P4 order of suspension to treat the period of
suspension as duty with all consequential benefits and to set aside Ext.P9
order.
4. I have heard Smt. K.P.Susmitha, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri. Alex Antony Sebastian, the learned standing counsel.
5. On going through Ext.P9 order passed pursuant to directions
issued by this Court, I find that the 2nd respondent had not provided the
petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The learned counsel has highlighted
certain factual mistakes in the order as well. This Court in Abdulla T.A. v.
Supply Co and Ors. [2020 (1) KLT 473] relying on the observations made by
the Apex Court in Uma Nath Pandey & Ors. V. State of U.P. & Anr. [AIR
2009 (SC) 2375] had held that unless a statutory provision either specifically
or by necessary implication excludes the application of the principles of natural
justice, the requirement has to be read into the statute. In view of the law
laid down above, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P9 order cannot be
sustained under law.
WP(C) NO. 7108 OF 2022
Resultantly, this writ petition will stand allowed. Ext. P9 order will
stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider
the matter, as per procedure and in adherence to the provisions of law, after
affording an opportunity to the petitioner to advance her contentions. Orders
shall be passed, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall
produce a copy of the writ petition along with this judgment before the 2nd
respondent to ensure compliance.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
avs
WP(C) NO. 7108 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7108/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO: PL 1/005330/16
DATED 24-08-2016 OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATION), KSRTC, TRIVANDRUM
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO: PL 1/005344/16
DATED 12-01-2017 OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATION) KSRTC, TRIVANDRUM
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO: EDP.000831/2002
DATED 30-8-2017 OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRIVANDRUM
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE SAID ORDER TRD NO: 333/17 DATED:
21-10-2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DISTRICT
TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, MALAPPURAM UNIT
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
DATED 23-02-2018 IN W.P.(C) NO. 6117 OF 2018
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO: VLC1-021498/17 DATED
26/08/2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE, KSRTC
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18-01-2021
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
IN W.P.(C) NO: 27154/2021 DATED 16-12-2021
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE ORDER NO: 5161/GL6(APL)/2018/RTC
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20-12-2021
Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMOS NO. VLC1-021498/2017
DATED 13-03-2020 ISSUED TO K. P.
RADHAKRISHNAN, DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
WP(C) NO. 7108 OF 2022
Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMOS NO. VLC1-021498/2017
DATED 21.1.2020 ISSUED TO SRI. A. EMERSON
