IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3951 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BABU, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAPANICKER, THOTTAKADU P.O., CHANGANASSERRY. 2. VENU, VALAYIL KAROT, S/O.VASU, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANASSERY. 3. THOMAS CHACKO, CHIRAPURAYIDAM, MAMMODU P.O., CHANGANASSERRY. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.S.R.T.C., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), VIGILANCE SECTION, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C.DEPOT, CHANGANACHERRY. 4. ASHOK KUMAR (DRIVER), UNDER SUSPENSION, K.S.R.T.C., CHANGANACHERRY DEPOT, RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBIL, THRIKKODITHANAM P.O. CHANGANACHERRY. MR.V.V.N.NAMBIAR, SC FOR KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3951 of 2010 (T) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge raised in the writ petition is against Exts.P2 to P4, memo of charges issued to the petitioners. 2. Before Exts.P2 to P4 were issued, by Ext.P1, the petitioners were placed under suspension. After the issuance of memo of charges, by Ext.P6 order, the petitioners were reinstated in service and were transferred from Changanassery to Thiruvalla. In this writ petition, they contend that the charges in Exts.P2 to P4 are contradictory to the contents of Ext.P1 order of suspension and therefore deserves to be set aside. 3. I am not persuaded to agree with this contention. A delinquent is expected to defend the charges levelled in the memo of charges. Even if what the petitioners submit is factually correct, it can only be a defence available to the delinquents to defend the charges. The defects pointed out in Ext.P1 document, by itself, will not invalidate the charges. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to face WP(C) No.3951/2010 -2- the enquiry and defend the charges levelled against them. However, having regard to the fact that on receipt of the memo of charges the petitioners have filed Ext.P5 and other replies, it is for the disciplinary authority to conclude the proceedings on an expeditious basis. This the disciplinary authority shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg