IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15117 of 2011(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.G.RAVI, S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALAYIL HOUSE, AMALA NAGAR P.O., VILANGAN-680 555, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS MANAGER(VIGILANCE), KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. 3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680 020. BY ADV. SRI V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC., K.S.R.T.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 15117/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 15 OF THE KERALA CIVIL SERVICE (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1960 DATED 19/09/2003. P2: COPY OF THE SHOWN CAUSE NOTICE,BEARING NO.V.L.E5/023295/03, DATED 14/10/2004. P3: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT, WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, DATED 04/09/2004. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V.L.E5/023295/03 DATED 12/11/2004 P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/01/2009 IN SC NO.290/2007 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO,.D/DIS.02809/09/APL DATED 11/06/2009. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.V.L.E5/026099/10, DATED 14/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15117 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 24th June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was working as a driver in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. On the allegation that he was found in possession of 1.8 litres of arrack a crime was registered against him. Taking into account the fact that in connection with the said crime the petitioner was arrested, he was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Ext.P1 memo of charges under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 was served on him. The disciplinary proceedings thus initiated as per Ext.P1 culminated in imposition of penalty of removal from service as per Ext.P4 dated 12.11.2004. Despite the fact that the punishment of removal from service was inflicted on him the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same. Later, granting benefit of doubt, the Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur acquitted the petitioner as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 9.1.2009 in S.C.No.290 of 2007. As already noticed hereinbefore, even though the punishment imposed on him was removal from service the petitioner had allowed the said order to become final without pursuing the statutory remedies available. However, after Ext.P5 he has chosen to file a petition before the Chairman and Managing WP(C).No.15117/2011 2 Director and the petition was described as appeal and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation being the appellate authority treated it as appeal and considered the same and rejected it as per Ext.P6 dated 11.6.2009. In the appeal filed shortly after Ext.P5 the petitioner has prayed for reinstatement in view of his acquittal under section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellate authority has taken into consideration the circumstances that led to the imposition of the punishment of removal from service as per Ext.P4. The said circumstances have been elaborately discussed in Ext.P6 order by the appellate authority. Admittedly, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty. The disciplinary authority based on the findings of the enquiry officer issued a show cause notice carrying the proposal to remove him from service. Since the explanation offered by the petitioner in response to the said show cause notice was found unsatisfactory the disciplinary authority, after considering his explanation, confirmed the preliminary order and passed the final order removing him from service as per Ext.P4 dated 12.11.2004. In Ext.P6 the first respondent has taken note of the fact that the petitioner had not filed any statutory appeal against Ext.P4. It is only after Ext.P5 that he has chosen to file a petition dated 12.3.2009 along with a copy of Ext.P5 judgment with a prayer for reinstatement in WP(C).No.15117/2011 3 service. 2. In the context of the contentions, it is relevant to refer to the following paragraph in Ext.P6:- “I have gone through the connected records of the case in the light of Court Order. The packets of liquor confiscated by the Excise party contain inscriptions in Karnataka Language and hence it could be known that it was arrack that imported from Karnataka. The department case is that Sri.Ravi, Driver was on Bangalore interstate duty on 3.8.03 and it has been evidenced that those packets were brought on 3.8.03 during his duty in Bangalore service. The Excise party found out the packets filled with arrack from the premises of his residence. The detailed enquiry conducted Under Rule 15 of the KCS (CC & A) Rules 1960 revealed that the delinquent was fully guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was removed from service after observing all procedural formalities.” Even going by the settled position of law, an acquittal under section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure granting benefit of doubt to an accused who is an employee cannot and will not stand against initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings. In other words, even if Ext.P5 judgment was passed prior to the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings there would not have been any bar for initiation and continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. The proceedings would not have been directed to be dropped. That apart, in this case, the petitioner is an accused of delay and laches. The order removing him from service was passed as per Ext.P4 as early as on 12.11.2004. The WP(C).No.15117/2011 4 reasons assigned by the petitioner in this writ petition for not availing the statutory remedy to challenge Ext.P4 are not convincing. At any rate, it is an admitted fact that against Ext.P4 the petitioner had not preferred any statutory remedy. It is only after Ext.P5 that he woke up and preferred a petition on 12.3.2009. In fact, that cannot be construed as an appeal. It can only be construed as a petition submitted by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P5. Even then, the authority considered the same and then passed an order on 11.6.2009 and observed that there is no reason for interfering with Ext.P4 order dated 12.11.2004. Though Ext.P6 is dated 11.6.2009 the petitioner was not diligent enough to pursue the grievances even against Ext.P6. This writ petition challenging Ext.P6, besides Exts.P1 to P4, has been filed only on 3.6.2011. In view of the said position, on the sole score of delay and laches, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. That apart, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P6. In the circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS