IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36559 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SUGATHAN, EX-CONDUCTOR (KSRTC), PANAKKAL HOUSE, THENKARA P.O., MANNARKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ABRAHAM SRI.BIJU MARTIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS MANAGER (VIGILANCE), OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE SECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE. BY SC SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).36559/2009 ....................... Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner was an employee under the KSRTC. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was finally removed from service. He moved the appellate Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C).19602/2004. During the pendency of the case, ptitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.4.2007. Subsequent to his retirement on 20.10.2008, the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment, with the following directions. “The direction in Ext.P7 to issue a fresh charge sheet with previous punishments is vacated. The enquiry to be conducted as per Ext.P7 shall be on the same charge sheet which has already been issued to the petitioner. Previous punishments can be mentioned in the show cause notice for punishment and can be considered for deciding the quantum of punishment only. All other direction in Ext.P7 are upheld.” 2. Taking advantage of the liberty thus given to the W.P.(C).36559/09 2 respondents to continue the disciplinary action, proceedings are continued. These proceedings are now challenged by the petitioner contending that in view of his retirement from service, the disciplinary action cannot be continued. This contention of the petitioner is sought to be resisted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relying on Ext.P10 judgment and the directions issued therein. 3. In my view, having regard to the directions in Ext.P10 judgment, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be faulted. Therefore if the petitioner is aggrieved, the appropriate course which the petitioner ought to have adopted was to seek review of the judgment. Therefore, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving open the right of the petitioner to seek his remedies in accordance with law. Needless to say that other reliefs that are sought are left open. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs