Partly allowed

P.S.Satyan v. the Managing Director

Kerala HC20 Mar 2015WP(C)/5708/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that enhancing punishment in an appeal filed solely by the employee without the department's notice is legally impermissible. The court quashed orders enhancing punishment and retirement, restored the original order barring increments, and directed payment of benefits.

What did the court decide?

Orders enhancing punishment (Ext.P7 and Ext.P9) quashed; original order (Ext.P4) restored. Petitioner treated as retired from superannuation; benefits directed to be disbursed.

P.S.Satyan Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/29TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 5708 of 2014 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.S.SATYAN, AGED 55 YEARS PANTHIYAKALATHIL HOUSE, PANAMBUKADU, VALLARPADAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (EX-CONDUCTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ANGAMALY DEPOT).

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) SRI.K.KRILIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23.

¶11

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE) THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ANGAMALY 683 573.

¶15

BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 5708 of 2014 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 12.4.2001.
EXHIBIT P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.5.2001.
EXHIBIT P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 9.5.2003.
EXHIBITP3(a)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.VLD3-001196/01 DATED 26.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	:	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.VLD3-001196/2001 DATED 25.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.ALP-22270/08 DATED 4.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 3.3.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DIS.22270/08/APL DATED 31.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	:	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14559/2011 DATED 15.11.2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (2ND RESPONDENT) VIDE NO.RP.14/210 DATED 5.10.2013.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶24

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶25

WP(C) NO. 5708 OF 2014

¶26

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2015

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for misbehaviour in service as Conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The third respondent by Ext.P4 order barred the increment of the petitioner for three years with cumulative effect and the period under suspension was regularised as eligible leave. The punishment so imposed was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the first respondent. It may at once be noticed that the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation did not file any appeal seeking enhancement of punishment on the petitioner.

¶29

The first respondent has however by Ext.P7 order enhanced the punishment compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service with immediate effect. The period of suspension was also treated as eligible leave as was done by the third respondent in Ext.P4 order. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 order in revision before the tribunal which rendered Ext.P9

¶30

¶31

WP(C) No. 5708/2014

¶32

order. Ext.P7 order has been affirmed in Ext.P9 order and the same is impugned in this writ petition.

¶33

It is bewildering as to how a punishment imposed on the petitioner could be enhanced in an appeal filed by him to the higher authority. This is especially so when no appeal was filed at the instance of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. There is no case for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation that a notice to show cause against enhancement of punishment was however served on the petitioner. There is no averment to that effect in the counter affidavit filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation nor any show cause notice produced. The appellate authority and the revisional authority should have at best confirmed the original order of punishment or annulled the same if there was valid and just grounds.

¶34

I have no hesitation in my mind to hold that Exts.P7 and P9 orders are vitiated by errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Exts.P7 and P9 orders are quashed and Ext.P4 order is restored. Resultantly the punishment imposed on the petitioner can only be barring increment for three years with

¶35

¶36

WP(C) No. 5708/2014

¶37

cumulative effect and also treating the period of suspension as eligible leave. The petitioner shall be treated to have retired from service on 30.09.2014 on which date he attained the age of superannuation. The respondents are directed to disburse the monitory benefits due to the petitioner accordingly within two months.

¶38

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶39

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶40

ncd

P.S.Satyan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Satyan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Abdul Azeez Vs Perinthalmanna Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Vinodini A.M. Vs Special Sale Officer

Indira Bai K.C. Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

V.K.Balachandran Nair Vs P.K.Vinod Kumar

Navaikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 964 Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Safwan K.E. Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation