IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4647 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- SANTHOSH JOSEPH, ASST. DEPOT ENGINEER, KSRTC, THUNDATHIL HOUSE CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/3/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 4647 of 2008(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED NOVEMBER, 2002. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 2.8.2003. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.10.2003. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.1.2004. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11.2.2004. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.7.2006. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 11.2.2004. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2003. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE REVISION DATED MAY 2007. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2007. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 31.12.2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 4647 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an Assistant Depot Engineer of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. On certain allegations of misconduct detailed in Ext.P2, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. An enquiry was held. The enquiry officer submitted enquiry report finding the petitionr guilty of two charges. The petitioner was given Ext.P5 show cause notice enclosing a copy of enquiry report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed Ext.P6 order imposing on the petitioner the punishment of barring of increment for three months without cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 appeal before the Managing Director. Thereafter, the Managing Director issued Ext.P5 show cause notice directing the petitioner to show cause, why the the punishment should not be increased to that of withholding of next increment for a WPC.No.4647 of 2008 : 2 : period of two years. After considering the appeal and the reply to the show cause notice, the Managing Director enhanced the punishment to one of withholding of one increment for two years permanently. The petitioner filed Ext.P11 appeal before the appellate tribunal of KSRTC. That was considered as a revision by the Tribunal and by Ext.P12 order, the Tribunal converted the punishment into one of barring of increment for one year temporarily. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6, P10 and P12 orders in this writ petition. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. 3. I have considered the contentions of the parties. 4. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the enquiry proceedings is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice to the extent the petitioner was not permitted to examine the witnesses on his side. But except in the writ petition nowhere else in the entire proceedings before the WPC.No.4647 of 2008 : 3 : disciplinary authority, appellate authority and Tribunal, the petitioner had such a case. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not produced any material to prove that the petitioner has been denied opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. 5. The statement of allegations against the petitioner is as follows: “During the inspection of the AWM(M), KTM on 13.8.02 severe maintenance lapses were detected at PTA garage. Vehicle Nos.TA 375, TN 186, TN 309, TS 305, TS 372 and TP 578 were pending for weekly maintenance. 27 Nos of vehicles had been delayed for weekly maintenance and KMPL statement for 7/02 was not prepared as on 13.8.02. Bus Nos. TA 171 and TA 137 suffered B.D. Due to maintenance Lapse, and 18 Nos of tyres were idling for want of tyre card. Abnormal Variation was seen while checking bus Nos. TP 226 and TN 209 for tyre pressure. Battery of bus No. TN 209 was found with sulphation. On physical verification of bus No. TN 209 the axle stud was found loose and the grease lubrication found poor. The above maintenance lapse shows that the overall supervision of the garage is very poor and Sri Santhosh Joseph, Asst. Depot Engineer is responsible for it. The action of the ADE amounted to gross dereliction of duty. Hence the charge.” Out of the same, the petitioner has been found guilty of two charges by Ext.P4 enquiry report which reads thus: “File No. : VLC3/31819/02. WPC.No.4647 of 2008 : 4 : Name of delinquent : Sri. Santhosh Joseph, ADE, PTA. Date of enquiry : 2.8.03 Charges in brief: Sri. Santhosh Joseph was working as Asst.Depot Engineer at Pathanamthitta Depo. Asst. Works Manager (M), Kottayam inspected the depot on 13.8.02 and noticed certain irregularities in the maintenance. Vehicles TA. 375, TN 186, TN 309, TS 305, TS 372 and TP 578 were pending for weekly maintenance. 27 vehicles were delayed for weekly maintenance and KMPL statement for 7/02 was not prepared till 19.8.02. Bus Nos. TA 171 and TA 137 suffered BD due to maintenance lapse. Inflation was not correct. Battery maintenance was not upto the mark. Physical verification of vehicles showed poor maintenance and lubrication. Hence the charge. Facts of evidence: Inspection report of the Asst. Works Manager (M) itself is the evidence. Defence: Sri Santhosh Joseph stated that the weekly maintenance was delayed due to diverting the staff to do dock work for releasing increased docked vehicles. Delay in preparing KMPL statement was due to the lack of experience of the Sn. Clerk. Reason for the BD due to radiator hose leakage was explained to be the bolckage of radiator. Variation of tyre pressure was explained to be due to checking of tyre pressure in hot condition. Wastage of grease was restricted as per the direction of Works Manager, Eco. Cell and hence required grease alone was used to lubricate the vehicles. Sri. Santhosh Joseph had produced copies of weekly maintenance register to prove his statements. Findings : weekly maintenance was seen neglected during the first two weeks of July 02. There were 6 mechanics in the section and an average 66 man days can be expected from them upto 13.7.02 on which day AWM (M) conducted the inspection Altogether 54 weekly maintenance were seen done during this period. It is not justifiable that the batches were diverted to some other work due to exigency. No specific cases of exigency was reported. Weekly maintenance is the most important preventive maintenance to be done to a vehicle. Poor WPC.No.4647 of 2008 : 5 : lubrication and breakdown due to radiator hose leakage are the results of delayed weekly maintenance. Without proper feed back data, preventive maintenance cannot be arranged effectively and properly. Delay in preparing KMPL statement shows the negligence of the ADE in arranging preventive maintenance. Fuel maintenance, monthly maintenance, oil change, oil saving works etc., are based on KMPL statement and the overall performance of each and every vehicle and depot is reflected in the statement. Mere statement that the section clerk was busy in the section shows the negligence of the ADE. In both the above charges, the ADE is guilty. The other charges are minor based on routine inspection.” The petitioner vehemently protests that he is not guilty of any misconduct. It is settled law that sufficiency of evidence is not a ground for this Court to interfere with findings in an enquiry except where the report is based on no evidence. Here I cannot say that there was no evidence at all. The enquiry officer has given reasons for his conclusions based on such evidence. As such, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings in the enquiry. On a consideration of gravity of the misconduct, I am unable to find that the punishment imposed by the Tribunal is in any way disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct as well. WPC.No.4647 of 2008 : 6 : 5. In the above circumstances I am not inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed also. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- (S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) kp //True copy//