IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1627 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.PRADEEPKUMAR, DRIVER KSRTC, ATTINGAL DEPOT OF KSRTC, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA VEEDU, NEDUMPARAMB, ATTINGAL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INSPECTOR IN-CHARGE, KSRTC DEPOT, ATTINGAL. 2. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, ATTINGAL. 3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI.V.V.N.NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).1627/2010 ....................... Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is working as IInd Grade Driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Depot, Attingal. On 11.5.2009 at 8.45 am, while he was on duty, petitioner complained that the vehicle he was driving was defective and was not fit for further operation. A substitute vehicle was arranged and then the petitioner sought to be relieved on the ground of illness. He was taken to a doctor and it is stated that the doctor did not find him sick to be relieved of further duties on that day. However petitioner did not resume and remained absent, as a result of which he was not given attendance for the day. He raised a complaint that was rejected by the Executive Director. Again in the judgment in W.P.(C).27254/2009 filed by the petitioner, the matter ordered to be reconsidered and the Managing Director considered the matter. The claim of the petitioner was again rejected by Ext.P9. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. W.P.(C).1627/10 2 2. A reading of Ext.P8 order passed by the Executive Director and Ext.P9 order passed by the Managing Director show that it was only on account of the petitioner's failure to resume duties after he was subjected to a medical examination that operation of the vehicle had to be discontinued and that substantial loss was caused to the Corporation. There is nothing to indicate that it was the sickness that prevented the petitioner from continuing duties. If that be so, it is evident that the petitioner had declined to resume duty and therefore, the respondent cannot be faulted that the petitioner has not been given the day's attendance. 3. In view of the concurrent findings against the petitioner and in the absence of anything to conclude that the findings are perverse, I am not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs