Allowed

Ubaid Ellyas v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC8 Feb 2021WP(C)/2703/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Kerala, Ernakulam, allowed a writ petition challenging the illegal removal of a permanent KSRTC driver from service. The court quashed the termination order due to lack of disciplinary proceedings and directed reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

The order of removal (Ext.P9) stood quashed. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service.

Ubaid Ellyas Vs Kerala State Road Transport… — 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.2703 OF 2021(K)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

UBAID ELLYAS AGED 35 YEARS S/O ELLYAS,RESIDING AT J.E.HOUSE, ENTHIKKADU, KUTHIRAKULAM.P.O, VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695615 (EX-CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, VENJARAMOOD DEPOT)

¶8

BY ADV. SHRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶11

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

¶12

3 ASSISTANT TRASPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VENJARAMOOD DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695602.

¶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.2703 OF 2021(K)

¶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 representation on 30.10.2018 requesting for rejoin duty. He was informed that he has been removed from service with effect from 11.06.2018 by Ext.P9 order dated 01.10.2018. Thereafter, he submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 16.11.2020 before the first respondent.

¶20

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P9 order of removal from service is

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No.2703 OF 2021(K)

¶24

order.

¶25

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that identically placed employees have been taken back, pursuant to Ext.P10 and Ext.P11 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.P10 and P11 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

¶26

WP(C).No.2703 OF 2021(K)

¶27

¶28

any disciplinary action is illegal and liable to be interfered with.

¶29

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P9 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.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶32

R.AV

¶33

WP(C).No.2703 OF 2021(K)

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORER NO.D.DIS.PL11/035041/15 DATED 13/11/2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2/1931/2018/VJD DATED 11/5/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/10/2018 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.E1/3045/18/VJD DATED 9/11/2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/10/2018 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.ESTT/2280/VJD/2020 DATED 12/10/2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/11/2020 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.E4/2663/VJD DATED 16/11/2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.PL 11/000806/2018 DATED 1/10/2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/8/2020 IN W.P(C)NO.5317/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/1/2021 IN WA NO.25/2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL

Ubaid Ellyas v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ubaid Ellyas 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

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

Nizarudeen. S Vs Managing Director

Azad M.C. Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Shajahan T. Vs the Secretary