IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 4771 of 2009(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.BALACHANDRAN, (DRIVER, KSRTC, PEROORKADA, UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION FROM SERVICE), SOUMYA BHAVAN, MUKKOLAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KSRTC. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.4771 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a driver of the 1st respondent-Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He was removed from service of the Corporation pursuant to disciplinary action, allegedly without complying with the procedure contemplated under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, which, according to the petitioner, is applicable to the employees of the 1st respondent Corporation also, by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent upheld the order of punishment, in appeal. The revisional authority, viz., the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Appellate Tribunal, found that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for violatin of principles of natural justice and the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for fresh disposal, as evidenced by Ext.P2. As such, the petitioner continues to be under suspension. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the petitioner is not being paid subsistence allowance, nor is he admitted to duty. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i. Call for the records leading to this case and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse subsistence allowance to the petitioner with arrears from the date of Exhibit P1 order and also the salary of the petitioner for the month of April 2006 immediately. 2 ii) Issue such other orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the fact and circumstances of the case.” 2. The contention of the standing counsel for the Corporation is that the petitioner deliberately caused the accident by reversing the vehicle with an intention to hit the victim, who subsequently died. Even if the same is true, I do not think that if the petitioner is eligible for subsistence allowance, the same can be denied to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I direct the 1st respondent to consider whether, under law, the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance and if the same is due, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge