IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12553 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.NIZARUDEEN, MANAKKATTUVILAKOM, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KAZHAKKUTTAM,TRIVANDRUM (DRIVER,KSRTC UNDER SUSPENSION). BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, FORT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV.SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.12553 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2.The petitioner was not permitted to discharge his duties and responsibilities as a servant of the first respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation from 10.10.2008. While the petitioner attributes this as a grave illegality, the fact remains that he continues to be out of duty even now. He says that he has not even been served with an order of suspension until he obtained it under the Right to Information Act. He further says that the only incident that could be said against him was that, without permission, he left his station of work after parking the bus since he became suddenly ill. He has also placed on record an out-patient ticket issued by a medical centre. These are matters to be first resolved between the management and the employee. Though the learned counsel for the KSRTC does not state that any memo of charges or WPC.12553/09 Page numbers show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, he states that the petitioner appears to be accused also of not having obeyed an order of transfer and still further, that he refused to accept the order of suspension and the order transferring him. But it is rightly noticed that in law, the petitioner is to be re- admitted to duty subject to his liability to be proceeded against on disciplinary counts. Therefore, learned counsel for the KSRTC states that the petitioner could be re-admitted to duty without prejudice to disciplinary proceedings, as also the right of the employer to transfer him and all other attendant liabilities. Recording this submission, it is directed that the petitioner would be ordered to rejoin duty at the earliest subject to what is stated above. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. It is clarified that this judgment does not touch any of the allegations, by or against the petitioner, on merits. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.21/5.