The Court set aside a suspension order issued in 2015, holding it unjustified after three years where the petitioner continued to serve. Liberty was granted to the Corporation to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings.
Suspension order quashed; liberty granted to Respondent to complete disciplinary proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 4911 of 2015
PETITIONER:
A.G.RAJU AGED 52 YEARS, VEHICLE SUPERVISOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERUMELI DEPOT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRASPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - 695 001.
2 THE MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) [IN CHARGE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VIGILANCE]
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRNASPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
KERALA STATE ROAD TRNASPORT CORPORATION, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 506.
BY ADV. SHRI.T.P SAJAN, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C).No. 4911 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1
order dated 16.01.2015 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. While admitting the writ Petition on 20.02.2015 this Court has granted an interim order keeping operation of Ext.P1 order in abeyance. That interim order, extended from time to time is still in force. The
first respondent Corporation has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the order of suspension.
over the memo of charges issued to the petitioner, as a prelude to the disciplinary proceedings. The memo of charges is dated 12.02.2015. In spite of the order
of suspension, the petitioner has continued in
service on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court on 20.02.2015. In the meanwhile, other than the petitioner submitting his statement of objections to the memo of charges, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him has not proceeded
3
WP(C).No. 4911 of 2015
any further. In such circumstances, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should be placed under suspension at this point of time. It would be appropriate if, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is taken to its logical conclusion without much delay.
the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. I make it clear that, Ext.P1 is being
quashed taking into the consideration the fact that
more than three years has elapsed after issuance of
the suspension order, during which period the petitioner had continued in the service of the Corporation. Hence, the observations and findings in
this judgment shall not in any manner effect the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
4
WP(C).No. 4911 of 2015
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 16.1.15 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1a TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE REF VLC 3-14353/17 DATED 24.08.2017 //TRUE COPY// JS/07.12 PA TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suspension order issued over three years ago can remain in force while a petitioner continues to work based on interim stay.
Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated after a long lapse of time should be quashed or completed.
A.G.Raju
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
V.G.Arjun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
