Disposed

M.Rajudheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2016WP(C)/7334/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged transfer orders against a bus driver. The High Court noted pending complaints and an enquiry. It directed the management to consider the petitioner's representation, conduct a pre-enquiry hearing, and finalize the proceedings within three months while continuing the interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, provide a hearing before the officer involved, and finalize the enquiry proceedings within three months.

M.Rajudheen Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7334 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M.RAJUDHEEN, S/O.MEERA SAHIB,AGED 55 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER GR-II, K.S.R.T.C, ADOOR DEPOT AND RESIDING AT VATTAVILA VEDU, MARROR.P.O, ELAMANNOOR VIA, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 524.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,

¶11

TRANSPORT (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 001.

¶12

2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 023

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

3. THE MANAGER ACCOUNTS IN CHARGE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

¶15

4. THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER IN CHARGE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 023

¶16

5. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATHANAPUAM-689 695.

¶17

6. SHRI E.A.KUNJU, INSPECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATHANAPURAM - 689 685.

¶18

2/-

¶19

-2-

¶20

WP(C).NO.7334/2016

¶21

*ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED

¶22

*Addl.R7. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

¶23

ADOOR - 691 523.

¶24

*ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28/03/2016 IN IA.NO.3651/2016

¶25

R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE R2 TO R5,ADDL.R7 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC DR.THUSHARA JAMES

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

sts

¶28

WP(C).No. 7334 of 2016 (N)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶31

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 24.10.2015 ISSUED BY DR.ALEX JACOB, PENIL HOSPITAL, PATHANAPURAM

¶32

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY COMPLAINT DATED 24.10.2015 SUBMITTED TO THE STATION MASTER,PATHANAPURAM DEPOT.

¶33

EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.10.2015 SUBMITTED TO THE STATION MASTER

¶34

EXHIBIT-P4: A TURE COPY OF O.P.TICKET NO.44481 DATED 24.10.2015 EXHIBIT-P5: A TURE COPY OF MEDICAL FITNESS CERTIFICATE DATED 26.10.2015 EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 26.10.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶35

EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 3.11.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT, THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

¶36

EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.PL-13/01101/15 DATED 11.12.2015 EXHIBIT P9: A TURE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.E1/1496/15/PATHANAPUAM DATED 21.12.2015

¶37

EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI.VARGHESE SAMUEL, CONDUCTOR, DATED 2.2.2016

¶38

EXHIBIT P-11: A TURE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 8.2.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶39

EXHIBIT P12: A TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET NO.VLD2-038598/15 DATED 29.1.2016 EXHIBIT P13: A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 8.2.2016.

¶40

EXHIBIT P14: A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 26/02/2016 WPC.NO.7334/2016 (N)

¶41

EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 26/04/2016

¶42

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶47

W.P.(C). No.7334 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2016

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P8 and P9 orders passed by 3^rd and 5^th respondents respectively, by which petitioner was transferred from Pathanapuram to Adoor, and for other related reliefs.

¶50

Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus; petitioner is working as Driver in the respondent Corporation on and w.e.f. 1.3.1996 after securing selection through Employment Exchange, Panthalam Unit. On selection and advice by Kerala Public Service Commission, petitioner was appointed on regular basis and posted at Pappanamcode in 2007. Later, he was transferred to Adoor. Thereafter, petitioner has worked in various depots of the respondent Corporation. According to the petitioner, petitioner has unblemished service record throughout his career. On 24.10.2015, petitioner was assigned with a duty at 5.30 a.m. in bus No.RAC27 along with a Conductor, one Varghese

¶51

W.P.(C). No.7334 of 2016

¶52

¶53

Samuel. Some commotion occurred consequent to the direction issued by the Traffic Controlling Inspector to operate 11.20 hours Pathanapuram - Ezhukone service as Pathanapuram - Enath after 11.30 hours. Since the petitioner was suffering from chronic gastroenteritis and hyper-tension, petitioner pointed out to the said Inspector about his inability to operate the service. According to the petitioner, the said Inspector has abused the petitioner in filthy language and thereafter, petitioner was taken to the hospital at Pathanapuram and he was asked to take rest for two days, evident from Ext.P1 Medical Certificate. Even though, petitioner has approached the Station Master requesting to relieve him from duty and complained about the unexpected act by the Inspector, petitioner was asked to submit another submission without making any complaint for relieving petitioner from duty. Accordingly, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 and he was relieved from duty by the Station Master. Petitioner reported for duty on 26.10.2015 along with Medical

¶54

W.P.(C). No.7334 of 2016

¶55

¶56

Fitness Certificate and was admitted to duty, evident from Ext.P5. Thereafter, petitioner has filed a formal complaint, evident from Ext.P6. Petitioner has also submitted Ext.P7.

¶57

However, without taking into account the complaint filed by the petitioner, petitioner was served with Ext.P8 memorandum dated 11.12.2015, whereby allegations are made against the petitioner. Thereafter, Ext.P9 dated 21.12.2015 was issued transferring the petitioner to Adoor Unit and directed him to report for duty in the Adoor Unit. It is in this background, petitioner has approached this court.

¶58

Respondents 2 to 5 have filed a joint counter affidavit refuting the allegations, claims and demands made by the petitioner. It is contended, petitioner has himself indulged in acts quite indecent and to the detriment of the officers of the Corporation and it is thereupon that the Corporation has decided to conduct an enquiry with respect to the subject matter of allegations made against the petitioner as per Ext.P8 memorandum. According to the said respondents,

¶59

W.P.(C). No.7334 of 2016

¶60

¶61

petitioner was transferred in accordance with clause 11 of the guidelines provided by the Corporation for effecting transfer of its employees. It is also submitted that, an enquiry is instituted against the petitioner, which has already commenced by providing charge sheet to the petitioner in terms of Rule 15 of the KCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. Petitioner has filed a reply statement reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also producing Ext.P15 submission allegedly made by the petitioner against the charge sheet dated 26.4.2016.

¶62

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and perused the documents and pleadings.

¶63

The subject matter of enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner, evident from Ext.P8 is pending consideration of the Enquiry Officer. It is admitted that a charge sheet is issued by the respondents to the petitioner and, admittedly petitioner has filed Ext.P15 submission to the

¶64

W.P.(C). No.7334 of 2016

¶65

¶66

said charge sheet. These are all subject matters to be decided by the Enquiry Officer to be appointed by the Corporation to sort out the issue arose consequent to Exts.P8 and P9. Since the enquiry is pending, I think it is only appropriate that, the allegations and counter allegations raised by the respective parties are not discussed in this judgment.

¶67

Any how when the matter was admitted to the files of

¶68

this court, an interim order was passed by this court, whereby, petitioner is continuing in Pathanapuram Depot of the respondent Corporation. I also find that, petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 representation before the 2^nd respondent, which is also pending consideration. Therefore, without stating anything on merits with respect to the submissions and rival submissions made in this writ petition, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation submitted by the petitioner, which includes the transfer effected to the petitioner to Adoor Depot, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the

¶69

W.P.(C). No.7334 of 2016

¶70

¶71

respective officer in question, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the interim order passed by this court will continue. So also I direct the 2^nd respondent to take steps to conduct the enquiry and finalize the proceedings within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking into account the submissions made by the respective parties in respect of Ext.P8 memorandum of proceedings.

¶72

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶73

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶74

smv 05.08.2016

M.Rajudheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajudheen v. State of Kerala

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

Karim Khan a. Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Jaffer.P.Aboobacker Vs Vishnu P

K. Sethumadavan Vs the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-Oeprative Societies

Joshy.P.R Vs State of Kerala

Ashokkumar a Vs Joint Regional Transport (Officer)

Prejith R. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission