IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37742 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KURUVILA VARGHESE, PALLIYADATHIL HOUSE, MALLUSSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, DRIVER (UNDER SUSPENSION), KSRTC, KOTTAYAM DEPOT, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM - 1. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC FOR KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 37742 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Executive Director of Vigilance of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the allegations levelled against him is under challenge in this writ petition. It is alleged that the petitioner misbehaved to the Vehicle Supervisor and also assaulted him. Under Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which admittedly govern employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, an appeal lies from Ext.P6 to the Managing Director of the Corporation. Under Rule 31 of the said rules, in an appeal from an order of suspension, the appellate authority is bound to consider whether on the facts, the order of suspension was warranted. The petitioner thus has an effective and meaningful remedy by way of appeal. Further, the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal has also not expired. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner W.P.(C) No.37742/2010 2 should invoke the appellate remedy available to him, instead of seeking the intervention of this Court. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal before the Managing Director of the Corporation challenging Ext.P6 order within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the appellate authority shall consider the same and take a decision on the appeal expeditiously and in any event, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the memorandum of appeal. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.