Allowed

Sivakumar R v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Kerala HC16 Jan 2023WP(C)/1163/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an order transferring the petitioner due to alleged sleeping on duty, directing no punishment without a proper enquiry. The Court clarified this does not bar future transfers and vindicates the doctrine of procedure in disciplinary matters.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P1 order held unenforceable without proper enquiry; liberty given to initiate action after future transfer if required.

Sivakumar R Vs Kerala State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 26TH POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 1163 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SIVAKUMAR R, MECHANIC, PF/ID NO. 688076
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CHENGANNUR UNIT (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER
TO PARASALA), CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS.
SACHIN RAMESH
BRIJESH MOHAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KSRTC TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

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

¶11

BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 1163/23

JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P1 order of the 2 nd respondent –

¶17

Executive Director (Administration) of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), through which, he has been transferred from Chengannur to Parassala, on the allegation that he was found asleep while on duty.

¶18

2 . Sri.Brijesh Mohan – learned counsel for the petitioner , vehemently argued that Ext.P1 is punitive in nature and could not have been issued without a proper enquiry. He added that, pending this lis, through an order dated 13.01.2023, the Executive Director (Vigilance) of KSRTC has issued an order cancelling the transfer; and therefore, that perhaps, as matters now stand, no further orders may be necessary against Ext.P1. He thus reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P1 be set aside.

¶19

3 . Sri.Deepu Thankan – learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, submitted that he does not have information regarding the orders of the Executive Director (Vigilance) as mentioned by Sri.Brijesh Mohan; but prayed that this Court may leave liberty to

¶20

WPC 1163/23

¶21

¶22

his client to initiate necessary action against the petitioner, if so

¶23

required, in future.

¶24

4 . There can be no doubt that Ext.P1 order is punitive in

¶25

nature and normally, could not have been issued without a proper enquiry against the petitioner.

¶26

In the afore circumstances and taking note of the afore submissions of Sri.Brijesh Mohan, particularly with respect to another order which is stated to have been issued by the Executive Director (Vigilance), dated 13.01.2023, I close this Writ Petition ordering that no action pursuant to Ext.P1 will be pursued, unless a proper enquiry is conducted and allegations against the petitioner are established.

¶27

I, however, clarify that afore will not stand in the way of a general transfer being effected in future.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

RR

¶30

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 1163/23

To be spoken to on 20.01.2023

¶35

This matter has been listed today, for being spoken to, at the

¶36

request of Sri.Deepu Thankan - learned Standing Counsel for the

¶37

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)

¶38

Sri.Deepu Thankan, submitted that disciplinary action has

¶39

already been initiated against the petitioner, but that, on account of the directions in the judgment, it may be interpreted that the

¶40

same cannot be continued.

¶41

I am afraid that the afore apprehension of the KSRTC is unnecessary because, I have only recorded conceded facts and thus closed the writ petition. Obviously, therefore, all further steps as may be warranted in law is fully left to the KSRTC to pursue, however, following due procedure.

¶42

This writ petition is thus disposed of with the afore clarifications.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

anm

¶45

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 1163/23

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1163/2023

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1EXHIBIT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM
VIDE NO. A&V/B2/46500/2022 DATED
5.1.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Sivakumar R v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakumar R 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

C.Maneesh Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Dr.P.T Sebastian Vs Chitralekha

B.Vijayan Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

P.Prabhakaran., Vs Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal

Hussan P T Vs Mukkam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.

The Secretary - K. Velayudhan Memorial Trust Vs State of Kerala