Allowed

Nizarudeen. S v. Managing Director

Kerala HC8 Feb 2021WP(C)/1545/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by an ex-driver of KSRTC challenging his removal from service. The petitioner sought employment abroad, returned before the leave period ended, and was subsequently removed without prior inquiry. The court held the order illegal for lack of procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated in service; Ext.P5 order of removal quashed.

Nizarudeen. S Vs Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1545 OF 2021(P)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

NIZARUDEEN. S AGED 46 YEARS S/O. SYED KUNJU, RESIDING AT DARUL AMAN, PEZHUMMOOD, KUTTICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695574. (EX-DRIVER, KSRTC, KATTAKADA DEPOT)

¶8

BY ADV. SHRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶11

2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶12

3 ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KATTAKADA DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572.

¶13

SC, SRI.T.P.SAJAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.1545 OF 2021(P)

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner was a permanent driver in the

¶19

KSRTC. In 2016, he sought five years leave for employment abroad. It was sanctioned to the petitioner by Ext.P1 order. Accordingly, he went abroad, got engaged in a contract employment and returned to India before completion of five years period. After return, he submitted Ext.P3 application on 05.06.2018 requesting for rejoin duty. He was informed that he has been removed from service with effect from 01.06.2018 by Ext.P5 order dated 01.10.2018. Thereafter, he submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 15.10.2018 before the first respondent.

¶20

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P5 order of removal from service is per se illegal, unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable. No charge memo was issued to him, no show cause notice was issued to him, no personal hearing was conducted and there was no enquiry preceding the impugned

¶21

WP(C).No.1545 OF 2021(P)

¶22

¶23

order.

¶24

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that identically placed employees have been taken back, pursuant to Ext.P9 and Ext.P10 judgments. It was reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the light of Exts.P9 and P10 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was reportedly rejected. The records show that the order of termination was based on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty. Admittedly the order of termination was not preceded by any disciplinary proceedings. Though the order of termination was issued invoking Rule 24 of the Kerala Service Rules, the same cannot apply to the case at hand, since the absence from duty was not for a period of more than five years. Further, leave was consequent to his voluntary application which was sanctioned. In the above circumstance, the order of termination without any disciplinary action is illegal and liable to be

¶25

WP(C).No.1545 OF 2021(P)

¶26

¶27

interfered with.

¶28

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P5 order of removal stands quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. He shall report to the Depot, where he was working prior to his termination and the respondent – KSRTC shall consider regarding the manner of regularisation of his period of absence from service.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶31

R.AV

¶32

WP(C).No.1545 OF 2021(P)

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. D.DIS.PL13/002460/16 DATED 18.1.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E2/1772/18/KTDA DATED 11.5.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶38

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.6.2018 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2/1772/18/KTDA DATED 14.6.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.PL11/000806/2018 DATED 1.10.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.10.2018 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2/4283/18/KTDA DATED 1.11.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 23.11.2019 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶44

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.8.2020 IN WP(C) NO.1097/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶45

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.1.2021 IN WA NO.12/2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶46

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL

Nizarudeen. S v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizarudeen. S v. 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

Ajayakumar v.a., Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Pradosh Keshav M.v., Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

C. Soman, Vs State Co-Operative Election Commission

Azad M.C. Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Shajahan T. Vs the Secretary

Ubaid Ellyas Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation