IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 323 of 2010(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.ANIL KUMAR, EPPAZHINJI HOUSE, ESTATE P.O., THULAVILA, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT, PAPPANAMCODE P.O. 4. THE HEAD VEHICLE SUPERVISOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT, PAPPANAMCODE. 5. SMT.CHANDRIKA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT, PAPPANAMCODE P.O. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R2 TO 4 MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.323 of 2010 (M) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he is a provisional driver working under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. According to him, from 29/12/2009 onwards although he was present in the Pappanamcode Depot for duty, the 3rd respondent has not alloted him any duty. With this grievance, the writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct respondents 3 & 4 to allot duty to the petitioner forthwith. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. According to the respondents, on 07/11/2009, while operating Eastfort-Pappanamcode-Udiyankulangara service, the petitioner failed to stop the bus at the authorised stop inside the garage to alight passengers even though the conductor rang the bell. Instead the petitioner drove the bus out side the garage and stopped the vehicle at a place where there was no authorized bus stop. On receipt of the complaint, the Administrative Officer of the Unit WP(C) No.323/2010 -2- summoned the petitioner and advised him to be more vigilant and careful in future. It is stated that to such advice, the petitioner responded roughly using abusive language and also shouted at the DTO in the presence of his subordinates. He thereafter slammed the door and left the chamber in a rude manner and gave misguiding reports to the media with a view to tarnish the image of the Organisation. It is stated that on account of the aforesaid misconducts of the petitioner, who was only a provisional driver, has been temporarily disengaged from service with effect from 11/11/2009. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner has not reported for duty till date. If the facts are as stated in the statement filed by the respondents, which is not contradicted by the petitioner by filing any reply, the only conclusion that is possible is that the allegations on the basis of which the writ petition has been filed is factually incorrect. Therefore, this writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg