IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1443 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ N.MOHANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.NARAYANAN, DRIVER, KARUNAGAPALLY, (COMPULSORILY RETIRED), RESIDING AT PUNNAMOOTTIL VEEDU, KALLELI BHAGOM P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC), REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KAYAMKULAM. 4. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, KSRTC, KOZHIKODE (SECTOR). SRI.V.V.N.NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1443 OF 2010 (E) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Driver under the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, while working at Karunagapally, on 22/1/2006, while the petitioner was driving Super Fast Bus No.TP 805, at about 19.00 hrs, on its way from Trichur to Thiruvananthapuram, when the bus reached Mamam bridge near Attingal, Center Joint, Housing and Plate set were detached from the vehicle along with the rear wheels, as a result of which the vehicle lost control. It is stated that a Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No.KL-2 R 4968 driven in a rash and negligent manner was coming from the opposite direction and dashed against the bus resulting in injury and damages to both the vehicles. Immediately thereafter, petitioner is seen to have absconded from the scene. 2. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 order dated 24/1/2006, petitioner was placed under suspension. Ext.P2 charge sheet was issued on 10/2/2006 alleging grave misconduct and dereliction of duty in as much as he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in its collision with an Indica car. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 WPC 1443/10 :2 : explanation pleading innocence and contending that it was on account of the aforesaid mechanical defects that the accident had occurred. Disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation submitted and an enquiry was ordered. In the enquiry that was conducted, a witness was examined on behalf of the management. However, petitioner chose not to cross- examine the witness. Petitioner also did not adduce any evidence in support of his plea that the accident occurred due to mechanical reasons. On conclusion of the enquiry, Ext.P4 report was submitted by the enquiry officer, which interalia states all this and holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. 3. Enquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority, who issued Ext.P5 show cause notice proposing a major punishment including compulsory retirement and recovery of the cost of materials. Petitioner was called upon to submit his representations against the findings of the enquiry officer and against the proposed punishment. Availing of this opportunity, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 explanation. The matter was considered and disciplinary authority issued Ext.P7 order WPC 1443/10 :3 : imposing a major punishment of compulsory retirement. Rs.13,738/- was ordered to be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner towards the loss sustained to the Corporation. On imposition of punishment, petitioner submitted Ext.P8 appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director, the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal and rejected the same by Ext.P9 order. In Ext.P9, the contentions raised by the petitioner that it was on account of the mechanical defect that the accident occurred has been rejected and the charges have been held proved. It is on this basis, the appeal was rejected. 4. In the writ petition, the main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that it was on account of the mechanical defect that the accident occurred and that the mechanical defects are obvious from Ext.P10, a report of inspection of the vehicle involved in the accident. 5. First of all, if the petitioner could prove his defence relying on Ext.P10, that piece of evidence ought to have been produced by the petitioner during the course of the enquiry before the enquiry officer himself. Not only that this document WPC 1443/10 :4 : was not produced by the petitioner, he did not even cross- examine the management witness nor did he adduce any evidence. It is after conclusion of the enquiry, imposition of punishment and dismissal of the appeal, this document is produced and relied on, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of Ext.P10 document in a writ petition filed before this Court and seeks a direction to the respondents to conduct a de nova enquiry duly adverting to Ext.P10 also. That apart, all that this Court is concerned is whether on the materials available before the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were justified in arriving at the findings. The correctness of their decision cannot be tested in the light of a document which was not available before them. That apart, there is absolutely no explanation from the petitioner why this document was not produced at the appropriate stage. On facts, I am satisfied that Ext.P7 order of the disciplinary authority and Ext.P9 order passed by the Appellate Authority does not call for any interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp