Quashed

Suresh Kumar G. v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC1 Apr 2024WP(C)/21587/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC driver challenged the Corporation's order cancelling his regularisation and probation on the basis of a crime registered over a private right-of-way dispute. The Court held the crime had no bearing on his official capacity, quashed the cancellation order, and directed the authority to consider his explanation and proceed with the disciplinary enquiry within three months after hearing him.

What the court decided

AI extract

Suresh Kumar G. Vs the Kerala State Road Transport… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 21587 OF 2015

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SURESH KUMAR G. S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, II GRADE DRIVER, K.S.R.T.C, KARUNAGAPPALLY DEPOT, RESIDING AT MUDIYIL PADINJATTATHIL MURI, SASTHAMCOTTAH P.O., KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM-690 521.

¶7

BY ADV SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023.

¶10

2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023.

¶11

3 THE PERSONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023.

¶12

4 THE DEPOT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ATTINGAL DEPOT, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 101.

¶13

5 THE DEPOT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPROT CORPORATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY DEPOT KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690 518.

¶14

BY ADV Deepu Thankan

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C)No.21587 of 2015

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2024

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The challenge in the writ petition is against

¶21

Ext.P9 order of the 1^st respondent, directing

¶22

cancellation of the order regularising his service and probation.

¶23

As per Ext.P1 dated 10.11.2009, the Public

¶24

Service Commission advised appointment of the petitioner in the 1^st respondent Corporation. On 21.12.2009, the petitioner was appointed as reserve driver as per Ext.P2 order. Subsequently, on completion of the required period of 240 days, the petitioner was absorbed as Driver (Gr-II) as per Ext.P3 memorandum dated 08.02.2011, w.e.f. 15.11.2010.

¶25

While so, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges (Ext.P7) alleging involvement in

¶26

W.P.(C)No.21587 of 2015 -: 2 :-

¶27

Crime No.822 of 2010 stated to have occured prior to his appointment in service of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 explanation to the charge memo. As per Ext.P9 order dated 13.05.2015, the 3^rd respondent recommended cancellation of the order of regularisation and probation of the petitioner.

¶28

Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

¶31

As noticed supra, the petitioner was appointed as a reserved driver on 21.12.2009 pursuant to the advice of the Public Service Commission. While in service, a crime was registered against him as FIR No.822 of 2010 in relation to an incident that allegedly occurred on 17.08.2010. It appears that the crime

¶32

W.P.(C)No.21587 of 2015 -: 3 :-

¶33

relates to a dispute with one Shri.Sunilkumar regarding a right of way. It is not substantiated as to how the regularisation in service and probation which is already declared could be interfered for the above reason. As noticed above, the crime apparently relates to a dispute regarding right of way and has nothing to do of his official capacity. In the circumstances, the directions in Ext.P9 order insofar as it relates to interfering with the regularisation of service and the order declaring probation cannot be sustained. It is for the authority to consider Ext.P8 representation and decide

¶34

on the further course of action on the proposed enquiry under Ext.P7.

¶35

Resultantly, Ext.P9 order is quashed. The competent authority of the 1^st respondent shall look into Ext.P8 and decide on the further course of action on EXT.P7. Let the proceedings be taken to its logical

¶36

W.P.(C)No.21587 of 2015

¶37

-: 4 :-

¶38

conclusion as early as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner may be given an opportunity of being heard.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C)No.21587 of 2015

¶43

-: 5 :-

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: THE TRUE NO.RIB(2)46	COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO 357/RDVR/KSRTC/07/GW39 DATED
10.11.2009 PETITIONER.	ISSUED BY PSC TO THE
EXT.P2: THE TRUE C NO.PL14/003	OPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER 332/08 DATED 21.12.2009
ISSUED BY PETITIONER.	THE 1ST RESPONMDENT TO THE
EXT.P3: THE TRUE NO.E2/00013 BY THE 4TH	COPY OF THE ORDER /ATL DATED 08.02.2011 ISSUED RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4: THE TRUE NO.822/2011 IN KOLLAM D	COPY OF THE FIR CIRME OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION ISTRICT.
EXT.P5: THE TRUE 01.12.2012 WIFE SMT. RESPONDENT.	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S T.SREEJA BEFORE THE 1ST
EXT.P6: THE TRUE 30.05.2013	COPY OF THE REPORT DATED CONDUCTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT CHARGE, KOL	THROUGH THE INSPECTOR-IN- LAM.
EXT.P7: THE TRUE C NO.V.L.E.4/	OPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES 029323/12 DATED 13.03.2014
ISSUED BY PETITIONER.	THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
EXT.P8: THE TRUE 12.05.2014	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9: THE TRUE	COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM
NO.PL15/014	838/15 DATED 13.05.2015
ISSUED BY	THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE
REPLY	NO.G1/1799/15/KNPY DATED
21.05.2015 INFORMATION	ISSUED UNDER RIGHT TO ACT.

Suresh Kumar G. v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suresh Kumar G. v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neethi P. Vs the State of Kerala

P Abubaker Vs the Secretary, Hosdurg Pcarb Bank

Ronold Vincent M Madai Vs the Director of Public Instruction

G.Madaswami Vs State of Kerala

Krishnankutty Vs the Nellanadu Grama Panchayath

Prithy Vs State of Kerala