IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 28865 of 2005(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.MOHAMMAD, RETIRED CONDUCTOR, K.S.R.T.C., MUKHASATH VEEDU, NEAR KAYYALATHODI, PIPELINE ROAD, P.O.MARIKUNNU, CALICUT-12. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SECRETARY, K.S.R.T.C. TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SHRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28865/2005 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DTD. 27/09/1999 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 29/07/1999 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF THE SHORTAGE. P4: COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT. P5: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 23/11/2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 13/10/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF REVISION PETITION DTD. DECEMBER 2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 30/04/2005 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.28865 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a Conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'). He retired from its service on 31.12.2004. While the petitioner was in service, he was placed under suspension alleging short remittance of collection to the tune of Rs.300/- on the night of 28.7.1999. Ext.P1 charge sheet was served on the petitioner. On its receipt, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 reply before the first respondent. Ext.P3 would reveal that on 29.7.1999, the petitioner had made good the shortage. However, dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the first respondent initiated an enquiry against the petitioner. Ext.P4 is the enquiry report. Later, the petitioner was offered with an opportunity to raise his objection against Ext.P4 report. After consideration of such objection, the first respondent passed Ext.P5 order. As per Ext.P5, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of barring of one increment for three years with cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The appellate authority confirmed Ext.P5 order as per W.P.(C) NO.28865/2005 2 Ext.P6. Ext.P6 order was challenged by the petitioner in Ext.P7 revision petition under Chapter III (a) (i) and (b) of the K.S.R.T.C (Appellate Tribunal) Regulation, 1981. The said revision petition was dismissed as per Ext.P8 order. It is challenging Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P8 that this Writ Petition has been filed. The petitioner is also seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to re-fix the petitioner's pay allowances ignoring Ext.P5 and to grant all consequential benefits including the revised pension and gratuity. 2. As already noticed hereinbefore, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions and on its culmination, Ext.P4 report was submitted. After considering Ext.P4 report, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice carrying the proposal to impose a punishment of barring of one increment for three years with cumulative effect. After consideration of the objection submitted by the petitioner against Ext.P4, Ext.P5 order was passed. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal preferred against Ext.P5 were considered by the appellate authority and the appellate authority found no reason to interfere with the order of disciplinary authority. The contention of the petitioner is that the finding of the enquiry officer is to the effect that the short remittance had occurred on account of carelessness on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, no misconduct W.P.(C) NO.28865/2005 3 whatsoever was committed by the petitioner as alleged. Evidently, all such aspects were considered by the appellate authorities. It was also found that the contention of the petitioner that audit was conducted at his instance is absolutely incorrect and the audit in question was done at the instance of the department as persons with previous record of misappropriation would always under surveillance. It was further found that going by the records, the petitioner was imposed four punishments on earlier occasions and all punishments were effected on the ground of misappropriation. As already noticed hereinbefore, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the finding of the enquiry officer that it was the carelessness on the part of the petitioner that resulted in short remittance was not at all taken into consideration by the appellate authority and revisional authorities. I am at a loss to understand how the petitioner could justify the short remittance merely by contending that it was not a misconduct committed by him whilst it occurred only on account of carelessness. Admittedly, at the time of occurrence of such incident, the petitioner had already put in about 23 years of service. The statement to the effect that the petitioner had suffered four punishments for misappropriation on earlier occasions, was also not disputed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the finding of the appellate authority that short remittance made by the petitioner could not be taken as an incident occurred solely on account of carelessness need no W.P.(C) NO.28865/2005 4 interference. Misappropriation is a very serious misconduct and when it is repeatedly committed by a person in service, the authorities are bound to take serious view in the matter. The petitioner did not have a case that he had never suffered any punishment on account of misappropriation prior to the incident that led to the issuance of Ext.P5 order. Therefore, if the authorities taking into account such antecedents took the view that no lenient view is to be taken that view calls for no interference. In the circumstances, the action on the part of the respondents in holding that misappropriation committed by the petitioner is very serious and granting punishment needs no interference. Having regard to the nature of the misconduct committed by the petitioner and taking into account the fact that he had previously imposed with punishment for misappropriation on different occasions, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the proceedings. It cannot be said that the findings of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities are so perverse warranting interference by this court. In short, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P8. This Writ Petition is liable to to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) W.P.(C) NO.28865/2005 5 spc C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT W.P.(C) NO.28865/2005 6 September, 2010