IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 606 of 2010() -------------------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ N.MOHANAN,AGE 50 YEARS,S/O.LATE K.NARAYANAN,DRIVER,KARUNAGAPPALLY(COMPULSORILY RETIRED) RESIDING AT PUNNAMOOTTIL VEEDU, KALLELI BHAGOM PO, KARUNAGAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENTS/RSPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC) REPRSENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRCTOR(VIGILANCE),KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. HE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KAYAMKULAM. 4. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, KSRTC,KOZHIKODE (SECTOR). ADV. SHRI. P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC FOR R1TO4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.606 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the punishment of compulsory removal of the appellant by the KSRTC. We have heard counsel for the appellant, Standing Counsel for KSRTC and have also perused judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant joined service as Driver in KSRTC in June 2000. However, he was involved in a rather major accident on 22.1.2006. The enquiry revealed that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the appellant and in fact immediately after the accident he ran away from the spot. Admittedly he was also charge- sheeted by the Police for rash and negligent driving. It is not known what happened to the criminal case. The learned Single Judge held that findings in the enquiry are such as to justify the punishment which is compulsory retirement. During hearing, we sought further details about W.A. 606/2010 2 the conduct of the appellant while in service from the Standing Counsel for KSRTC. Standing Counsel, therefore, got instruction from KSRTC and submitted that after the date of suspension and during pendency of enquiry in the course of less than 4 years, the appellant was involved in four major acts of misconduct such as assault against a Parliament Member, a female worker and he was also found involved in repeated rash and negligent driving. Suspensions suffered by the appellant during the four years prior to compulsory retirement were four in number. We do not find any justification to show leniency to the appellant who was rightly removed from the service. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms