IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1442 of 2006(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.P. SIMON, FORMERLY CONDUCTOR, K.S.R.T.C., MALAPPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT PAYYAPPURATH HOUSE, MUTTIL P.O., KALPETTA, WYNAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 1442/2006 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PLA 4 29134/81 DT. 6/5/81 BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, KSRTC, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO. VLD3/028707/2001 DT. 19/29.10.01. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. RW3/382/02/EDPL DT. 11/3/2002 BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE LETTER NO. RW3/382/02/EDPL DT. 20/5/02 OF THE WORKS MANAGER KSRTC, RD EDAPAL TO THE R3. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. VLD3/0288707/2001 DT. 1/3-3-03 BY THE R3 TOGETHER WITH THE COPY OF POSTAL COVER. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 22/4/2003 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D.DIS 2123/03/APL DT. 22/7/04 BY THE R2. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT. 31/08/2004 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R1. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT NO. RW/3/382/02/EDPL DT. 17/6/02 FURNISHED BY THE ASST. WORKS MANAGER I/C REGIONAL WORKS, EDAPAL. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. VLD3/028707/01 DT. 28/11/02 BY THE R3 IN THANINIRAM DAILY DT. 11/12/2002. EXT.P12. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 6/12/2005 BY THE R1 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 21/2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL. / TRUE COPY / tga THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 1442 OF 2006 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, while employed as a Conductor in KSRTC, was placed under suspension on 24.8.2001 and issued with memo of charges containing allegations referable to his conduct in office. The allegations were fundamentally of financial irregularities. Following the memo of charges, enquiry was conducted. The petitioner appeared on 6.5.2002. On 20.5.2002, Ext.P5 was issued adjourning the enquiry on the ground that a telephonic message was received from the control room of the Chief office at Thiruvananthapuram that the E.D, Vigilance had directed to postpone the enquiry until further directions from the Chief office. The petitioner was accordingly informed that arrangements have been made for conducting enquiry after the referendum, and being engaged connected with the work of pay bills of the employees. Ultimately, the petitioner was served an order terminating him from service. He carried it in intra- institutional appeal and in a revision to the Tribunal constituted Wpc 1442/2006 2 for such purpose. Though both those authorities concluded to over rule the petitioner's contention that he had no notice of any proceeding after 6.5.2002. On a perusal of the enquiry file, it is clear that no notice was issued after Ext.P5 and the petitioner had not participated in such proceedings. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had notice or even knowledge of such proceedings. The allegations against the petitioner being grave, it was impermissible to have concluded the enquiry and issued orders in the manner in which it has been done. Therefore, the justification of the allegations with reference to the materials adduced in the absence of the petitioner cannot be resorted to by the appellate or revisional authorities to sustain the order of removal from service. For the aforesaid reasons, Exts.P6 to P8 and P12 do not stand. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, quashing Exts.P6 to P8 and P12. As a consequence, the petitioner will stand reinstated without prejudice to the right of the management to proceed with the enquiry de novo from the stage at which it stood on 6.5.2002. If such proceedings commence within a period of four months from now, and conclude within a further Wpc 1442/2006 3 period of eight months, the period of suspension and the other allied matters would be considered depending upon the result of such enquiry. Otherwise, Writ petition ordered accordingly, leaving open all other issues. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/20/8