Allowed

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, v. G. Manoj

Kerala HC20 Jan 2022RP/867/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a review petition filed by the respondent-Kerla State Road Transport Corporation, clarifying that its writ judgment allows the Corporation to continue and conclude any existing disciplinary proceedings against the original writ petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition allowed to the extent of clarifying that the Corporation may continue disciplinary proceedings.

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Vs G. Manoj — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 30TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 867 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 21575/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2021 IN WP(C) 21575/2018 OF

¶7

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:

¶9

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

¶10

2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶11

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

¶12

4 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM-682016.

¶13

BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN

¶14

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶15

G. MANOJ, AGED 27 YEARS

¶16

DRIVER, GRADE II (ON LWA), KSRTC, ERNAKULAM UNIT, RESIDING AT KANIYAMPARAMBU, ULAVIPU, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688526, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE, NEETHU, AGED 27 YEARS, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE PETITIONERAS HE IS NOT IN INDIA.

¶17

BY ADV R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

RP NO. 867 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 21575/2018

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Service is complete. Respondent has already appeared through counsel.

¶23

This court allowed the writ petition by judgment dated 08.04.2021 in WP(C)No.21575 of 2018, set aside the impugned order and directed the Corporation to reinstate the writ petitioner immediately on the receipt of a copy of the judgment. It was also directed that the respondent Corporation shall consider the manner of regularization of their period of absence from service.

¶24

The Corporation has come up with the Review Petition, contending that the right of the management to complete the disciplinary proceedings is not reserved in the judgment.

¶25

After hearing the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the writ petitioner, who is the respondent, I am inclined to clarify that the judgment of this court dated 08.04.2021 will not stand in the way of the Corporation

¶26

RP NO. 867 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 21575/2018

¶27

¶28

continuing any of the disciplinary proceedings, if any, already initiated and to bring it to its logical conclusion. Hence, the Review Petition is allowed to the above extent.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶31

R.AV

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, v. G. Manoj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, v. G. Manoj

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

Antony K.S Vs Biju Prabhakar, IAS

Sreejith Babu Vs Biju Prabhakaran IAS

Tenny P.K Vs Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation

Roy S Johnson Vs M.T.Sukumaran

K.Krishnan Namboothiri Vs Vishnu Battathiri v

Moideenkuty Vs v.a.Sahadevan