IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 33576 of 2003(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.T.GEORGE, EX-CONDUCTOR, K.S.R.T.C., KOZHIKODE, MANDAPATHIL HOUSE, NALLURNADU P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.BABU POTHENCODE SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN SRI.V.D.SUDHEER SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (VIGILANCE) K.S.R.T.C. CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASST.TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C.CORPORATION, MANANTHAVADY. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1TO4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No.33576/03. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. REPORT BY R4 DTD.24.10.97. P2. COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD.15.7.97. P3. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.22.12.99. P3A. COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT. P4. COPY OF THE ORDE DTD....9..2000 BY R3. P5. COPY OF THE APPEALD TD.5.10.00 BEFORE R2. P6. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.26.6.01 BY R2. P7. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.1.02 BY R2. P8. COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD.8.7.02 BEFORE R1. P9. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.8.03 BY R1. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No. 33576 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. From the Mananthavady depot of the KSRTC, 39 pads of tickets were missing. On enquiry it was found that the same was stolen by the petitioner, pursuant to which, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. It was found on enquiry that he has used those stolen tickets in the bus in which he was the conductor and misappropriated the money. Disciplinary proceedings ended in imposition of the punishment of barring of one increment and recovery of the value of the tickets. Later on, it was found that 18 more pads of tickets were missing. The petitioner was proceeded against in respect the same also. An enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was found guilty, pursuant to which, Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued enclosing Ext.P3(a) enquiry report, directing him to show cause why the proposed punishment of removal from service should not be imposed on him. The petitioner filed objections to the same. After considering the same, by Ext.P4 order, the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the Managing Director. While w.p.c.33576/03 2 that appeal was pending, the appellate authority issued a notice directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the earlier punishment of barring of one increment should not be increased to compulsory retirement from service. Ultimately, the appeal filed by him was considered along with the other proposal and by Ext.P7 order, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him. The petitioner filed a revision against that order before the Tribunal, which was rejected. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4, P7 and P9 orders in this original petition. 2. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that before imposing the punishment on the petitioner he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the enquiry report in so far as the enquiry report was forwarded to him along with the proposal for punishment alone. In this respect, I find that although in Ext.P3 show cause notice, the petitioner was directed to show cause against the proposed punishment, in fact the petitioner had submitted explanation against the enquiry report also, which was also considered in Ext.P4 order and a finding was entered into to the effect that the same are not convincing. That being so, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner as he had been given opportunity to show cause against the w.p.c.33576/03 3 acceptance of the enquiry report also. 3. The petitioner challenges the enquiry on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence in the enquiry to find him guilty. Admittedly, in the enquiry, a witness was examined, who was not cross examined by the petitioner. In fact it was found that on several earlier occasions the petitioner was proceeded against for similar misconducts which are detailed below: “1) Placed under suspension for intentional fraud (Collected fare and non-issue of a ticket) on 16.4.'81 and re-instated w.e.from 26.5.'81 vide Order No.VLD1-38389/81 dt. 19.5.81. A punishment of six months bar on increment was awarded in this regard. 2) Placed under suspension for issue of a unmarked Luggage ticket, collected additional charge from a passenger by correcting journey records and reinstated to duty vide Order No.VLD1- 62576/88 dt. 21.10.88. A punishment of one year bar (Cumulative) was awarded to him in this regard. 3) Placed under suspension w.e.f. 23.11.'94 for issuance of stollen tickets unaccountedly and misappropriation of Corporation money vide Order No.VLD1-076040/94 dt. 23.11.'94. A punishment of one year bar on increment was awarded. 4) Placed under suspension with effect from 8.11.'98 for intentional attempt of fraud. Re-issue of ticket on 26.9.'98 vide Order No.VLD1-54778/98 dt. 5.11.98. 5) Increment withheld for a period of one year (temporary) for intentional fraud - uncollected fare and non issue of tickets on 20.1.'89. Destroyed evidence and insubordination vide. C.O. No.VLD1-13188/89 dt. 30.9.'94. 6) Increment barred for a period of 3 months temporarily for non stopping of bus in the bus stop on 4.10.89. Failed to pick up intending passengers and caused Revenue loss to the Corporation vide C.O.No.VLD1-69884/89 dt.12.5.'95.” w.p.c.33576/03 4 It is settled law that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into the sufficiency of the evidence in a disciplinary proceedings. The law is that if there is some evidence in support of the charges, this Court cannot interfere with the proceedings unless the conclusion is perverse. In this case, I am satisfied that there is some evidence against the petitioner and that the conclusion on such evidence cannot be said to be perverse. That being so, I am not inclined to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings especially in view of the fact that the petitioner was in the regular habit of repeating such misconducts. In any event, the petitioner had not challenged the earlier disciplinary enquiry in which he was found guilty. The lesser punishment of barring of increment was enhanced by the superior authority after notice to the petitioner. Since the misconduct for which the petitioner was found guilty was serious enough to warrant the punishment of dismissal from service, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.33576/03 5