Allowed

G.Binu v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC22 Jan 2020WP(C)/765/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the appellate order terminating the petitioner's service was vitiated by patent non-application of mind. The appellate authority failed to consider specific factual details submitted during the appeal regarding the petitioner's rejoining duty. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the ap

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; appellate authority directed to reconsider appeal afresh after hearing petitioner and address factual aspects within six weeks.

G.Binu Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.765 OF 2020(U)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

G.BINU AGED 36 YEARS CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, PATHANAMTHITTA DEPOT ( UNDER ORDER OF REMOVAL, RESIDING AT ANIZHAM, MANGARAM, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689 501

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023

¶11

2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 023

¶12

3 DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC,PATHANAMTHITTA DEPOT, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-689 645

¶13

BY T.P SAJAN, STANDING COUNSEL, KSRTC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.765 OF 2020(U) 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner, who was a permanent conductor of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation working in the Pathanamthitta Depot, is aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P7 orders, whereby the petitioner's service with the respondent Corporation has been terminated. Against Ext.P4 order terminating the service of petitioner, he had preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the 1^st respondent, but the said appeal was rejected by the 1^st respondent through Ext.P7 order. In the writ petition, it is the specific case of the petitioner that, while in Ext.P5 appeal, he had clearly brought to the notice of the 1^st respondent, the factual details regarding his rejoining duty after leave, and the fact that the District Transport Officer, Pathanamthitta had forwarded the details of his presenting himself for rejoining duty to the Executive Director (Administration), the said aspects were not considered by the 1^st respondent while passing Ext.P7 order, in a mechanical manner.

¶18

I have heard Sri. K.P.Rajeevan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

¶19

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, while passing Ext.P7 order, the factual aspects narrated in Ext.P5 appeal were not considered by the 1^st respondent. In my view, Ext.P7 order, to the above extent, is vitiated by a

¶20

WP(C).No.765 OF 2020(U) 3

¶21

patent non-application of mind by the Appellate Authority.

¶22

Accordingly, I allow this writ petition, by quashing Ext.P7 order, and directing the 1^st respondent to re-consider Ext.P5 appeal preferred by the petitioner, afresh, after hearing the petitioner, and specifically adverting to the factual aspects pointed out in Ext.P5 appeal preferred by the petitioner. The 1^st respondent shall pass fresh orders, as directed, after hearing the petitioner, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the 1^st respondent, for further action.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

hmh

¶27

WP(C).No.765 OF 2020(U) 4

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E2/2531/18/PTA DTD 11.5.18 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶31

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.5.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶32

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.E2/2767/18/PTA DATED 28.5.2018 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶33

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.P.L.11/000806/2018 DATED 1.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶34

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 25.1.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶35

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.5.2019 IN WP(C)NO.12951/2019 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.APL.3034/2019 DATED 09.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶36

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2019 IN CONTEMPT CASE (C)NO.1547/2019

¶37

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

G.Binu v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Binu v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binu John Vs the Secretary

Hanza Haji, Vs the Secretary

Xavier M.K., Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Bini Chacko T. Vs the Joint Registrar (General)

Sivadasan Vs Regional Transport Officer

C.v.Kochusara, Vs Saji T. Paul