IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 30152 of 2004(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.A.SREEDHARAN, AGED 54, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MATTAPPILLYKUDY HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR (STATION MASTER, K.S.R.T.C., ERNAKULAM). BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYAKUMAR SRI.V.N.MOHANADASAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC - R1 TO 3 SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. - R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON 04/06/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30152/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE GRADATION LIST DT. 1.4.1980. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 29.7.83 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 17.8.83 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE REQUEST DT. 5.10.88 ISSUED TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE REQUEST DT. 7.3.1990 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.6.04. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 11.6.04 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.19980/04 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE REPLY NO.PL10/017801/04 .DT. 13.9.04 BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 21.9.04. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 20.1.1993 NO.VLD3.40670/91 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DT. 17.9.04 ISSUED TO THE IST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 30152 OF 2004 M -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P9 and P10 orders. ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get assigned the rank of 1426 in the Ext.P1 gradation list and entitled to get promoted based on that rank. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to assign the petitioner the rank No.1426 in Ext.P1 gradation list and promote the petitioner to higher posts with effect from the date on which his immediate junior is promoted." WPC. 30152/04 M 2 2. Ext.P1 is the seniority list as per which the petitioner is having rank No.1400. There was a disciplinary proceeding in the year 1983. Ext.P2 is a show cause notice dated 29.7.1983. Ext.P3 is the final order. As per Ext.P3, petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of reduction by 200 places in the seniority list. Thereafter also, there were other disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Petitioner claimed restoration of seniority on the basis that the punishment proposed in Ext.P2 was reduction in the seniority list by 200 places, only for three years. According to him, therefore, the punishment cannot be more than the proposal. Still later, by Ext.P11 order dated 20.1.1993, his rank came to be reduced to the lower rank for three years permanently. Ext.P9, which is impugned is dated 13.9.2004. Therein, reference is made to Ext.P3. It is stated that the punishment of reduction is permanent and his rank is refixed. This was pursuant to Ext.P8 Judgment. Ext.P10 is another Memorandum dated 21.9.2004, wherein it is stated as follows: "In continuation of this office memo cited, Sri. M.A. Sreedharan, Conductor is informed that WPC. 30152/04 M 3 as per Gradation as on 1.4.80 his rank has been assigned as 1625(A) in between Sri. B. Balachandran Unnithan and Sri. R. Gopinathan, Conductor in view of order No. D. Dis (VLD3) 29727/83 dated 17.8.83 (reduction by 200 places permanently) and D. Dis. VLD3/30253/81 dated 30.4.83 (reduction by 25 places permanently). Further he has been awarded punishment of rank reduction by 50 places permanently vide Order No.(VLD.3)40678/91 dated 11.3.93. Hence he is assigned rank as 1675(A) in between Sri. P. Ailal (Sl.No.1675) and Sri. V. Prasadachandran (Sl. No.1676), Conductor, page No.538 of the Gradation as on 1.4.80" 3. Petitioner challenges Exts.P9 and P10. Ext.P10 is based on Exts.P3 and P11. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as far as Ext.P3 is concerned, it is an order confirming the proposal to impose penalty, and punishment cannot be more than the proposed penalty. The proposed penalty in Ext.P2 show cause notice was reduction in WPC. 30152/04 M 4 200 places for three years. He would submit that, that is the reason why the petitioner did not file any Appeal against the order also. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation would submit that the petitioner has been proceeded against six times. 4. As far as the contention based on punishment in Ext.P3 being in excess of the proposal contained in Ext.P2, I would not think there is much substance in it. It may be true that the proposal was for punishment for three years. But, when it came to the actual order passed, namely Ext.P3, the order is punishment of reduction in the seniority list without indicating any time limit. Also, counsel for petitioner does not dispute the fact that going by Rule 11 of the Classification Rules, reduction in the seniority list is permanent. If that be so, going by Ext.P3 order and also the statutory Rule, it is clear that the stand taken in Exts.P10 and P11 that the reduction in the seniority list by 200 places is permanent, is only to be accepted. In the same way, relying on Ext.P11 order, it is found that there is reduction WPC. 30152/04 M 5 in rank by fifty places for three years is permanent. There is no challenge to Ext.P11. Apparently, there is no challenge to Ext.P3 also. Taking Exts.P3 and P11 and the legal position, it cannot be said that the decision contained in Exts.P9 and P10 which are challenged before this Court is illegal. If that be so, the claim of petitioner for restoration of seniority for promotion based on the regular seniority after a period of three years, is only to be repelled. Accordingly, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.