IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26725 of 2006(F) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.T.JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS, DRIVER, K.S.R.T.C., KANNUR, POOCHALIL HOUSE, THATTUMMAL P.O., CHERUPUZHA VIA, KANNUR-670 51. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTION (VIGILANCE), K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN FOR SC,KSRTC R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO. 26725 OF 2006 F PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.5.2004. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER NO.VLE5/014644/2004 DATED 21.6.2004. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE FATHER OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 25.6.2004. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET NO.V.L.E5/014644/04 DATED 2.9.2004. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.9.2004. EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF K.P. SUNIL, THE CONDUCTOR OF THE BUS, DATED 19.8.2004. EXT.P8TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL STATEMENT DATED 11.1.2005 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 21.2.2005. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.3.2005. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 4.4.2005. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED 27.4.2005. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 27.5.2005 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.157430/05/APL DATED 9.6.2006 BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 26725 OF 2006 F -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P12 and P14. By Ext.P12, the Executive Director imposed a penalty of removal from the service of the KSRTC with immediate effect. Petitioner preferred Ext.P13 culminating in Ext.P14 and the Chairman & Managing Director (Appellate Authority) has proceeded to dismiss the Appeal. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel that there is a remedy of Revision before the statutory tribunal. No doubt, in this case, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the matter was relegated and it was found that the tribunal was defunct and the Review Petition had been filed which was allowed, and the Writ Petition came to be posted for hearing. It is submitted that there is indeed the revisional body which is functioning. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this case had its genesis in 2004 and the petitioner was placed under suspension WPC. 26725/06 F 2 from 2004 and without conducting any enquiry as required and without in fact even the alleged complainant Nun having given any complaint and without the Nun being examined, the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of removal from service. 2. Since there is a statutory tribunal now functioning, I feel that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is relegated to prefer a Revision where he can raise all the contentions available to him and a decision should be taken at the earliest as he is kept out of service. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner files a Revision within two weeks from today, the KSRTC Appellate Tribunal will consider the same with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision as early as possible and, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the Revision before it. Petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment before the Tribunal along with the Revision. I leave open the right of the WPC. 26725/06 F 3 petitioner to move for such interim relief as he is advised to make and it will be dealt with by the Tribunal in accordance with law. If the petitioner files a Revision as aforesaid within two weeks from today, the Revision will be considered on merits. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.