Dismissed

Biju M D, v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Kerala HC12 Aug 2022WP(C)/5604/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Managing Director of KSRTC to consider the petitioner's representation within a fixed timeframe, directing him to prefer a statutory appeal against the impugned disciplinary order as the proper forum for factual disputes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Managing Director of KSRTC to consider the petitioner's representation within a specified time frame; liberty to prefer a statutory appeal.

Biju M D, Vs Kerala State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5604 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BIJU M D, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN, DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHANGANACHERRY DEPOT 686 101, (RESIDING AT MUDATTU HOUSE, NEENDOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 601) BY ADVS. K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) A.JOSEPH GEORGE (AZHIKKAKATH)

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1	KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
2	THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
3	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023
4	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
5	THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHANGANACHERRY DEPOT-686 101 SRI.DEEPU THANKAN - SC

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO. 5604 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

Amidst the various assertions, allegations and averments made and urged in this writ petition, Sri.K.P.Justine - learned counsel for the petitioner, prayed that Ext.P8 representation preferred by his client, be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶15

However, Smt.Ummul Fida – learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, submitted that since Ext.P5 is the final order of the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner, he has a valid statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the same; and added that, she will not stand in the way of such an opportunity of being granted to him, provided he does so within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶16

Sri.K.P.Justin – learned counsel for the petitioner, at this time, submitted that Ext:P5 is peremptorily illegal since it has been issued without affording his client an opportunity of being heard.

¶17

Even when I hear Sri.K.P.Justine on the afore lines, it is clear from Ext.P5 that petitioner has been found guilty of not reporting for duty from 11.12.2017 and in not responding to a letter dated 07.05.2018, asking him to rejoin duty.

¶18

WP(C) NO. 5604 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

I am, therefore, of the firm view that the disputations between the parties are in the realm of facts, into which this Court cannot enter, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution; and hence that petitioner must prefer a Statutory appeal against Ext.P5, so that all these issues can be considered in its proper perspective by the jurisdictional Appellate Authority.

¶21

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and leave liberty to the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal against Ext.P5; and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be considered by the said Authority after affording him an opportunity of being heard, thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than three months thereafter.

¶22

Needless to say, I have not entered into the merits of any of the contentions of the petitioner and that all of them are left open to be impelled by him, if so warranted, after the afore exercise is completed.

¶23

SD/-

¶24

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

¶27

WP(C) NO. 5604 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5604/2022

¶30

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶31

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 26.5.2018 ISSUED BY DR. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.N.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.5.2018.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REFERRAL CASUALTY RECORD NO. 139803 DATED 16.12.2017.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND FITNESS CERTIFICATE DATED 12.11.2021.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PL11/000806/2018 DATED 22.12.2018.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.7.2021 IN W.P.C NO. 20725/2011 RADHADEVI VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AS REPORTED IN 2021 (6) KLT 586.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS VS. RAM NARESH LAL AS REPORTED IN 1970 (3) SCC 173.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.2.2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Biju M D, v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju M D, v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

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

Muhammed Fahiz K. Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Javed Sakker T.K. Vs Kannur University

Abdul Rasheed P.C. Vs the State Commissioner for Persons With Disabilities

Cube Modular Desings Vs Lal O.B.

Dr.Tara L Vs State of Kerala

The Sacred Heart College, Thevara, Vs the State of Kerala