IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25531 of 2003(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.GOPAKUMAR, S/O. LATE C.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CHERTHALA. 2. K.D.MOHANAN, S/O. DAMODARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER (RTD.), K.S.R.T.C., VIZHINJAM AND RESIDING AT KELATHIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHELLANAM P.O., KOCHI. 3. K.V.JOHNY, S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 54 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.N.UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.25531/2003-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. VLC1-16800/2003 DTD. 19/05/2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/05/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/05/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2.B: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/05/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE P.3. TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03/06/2003 IN W.P.(C).NO.17075/2003-G PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MEMO NO. VLC1-16800/03 DTD. 12/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. VLC1-16800/2003 DTD. 15/07/2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.25531 of 2003-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners were Assistant Transport Officers in KSRTC. On ground that they retained some Conductors to function as Clerks disregarding the directions issued to the contrary by the KSRTC, the employer decided to recover from them the loss allegedly caused to it by the said commissions and omissions of the petitioners. Pending assessment of actual loss, decision was taken for interim recovery. That led to an earlier round of litigation resulting in Ext.P3 judgment directing that the petitioners will be heard on the matter before a final decision is taken. Pursuant to that, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, the impugned Ext.P5 order has been issued. WP(C)25531/03 -: 2 :- 2.According to the employer, by Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2001, directions were issued regarding the engagement of Conductors on other duty in non-line duties/light duties. The failure of the petitioners, who had supervisory roles in office, resulted in the Corporation unnecessarily paying salaries at rates available for Conductors, though those persons were permitted to do clerical duties. Going by the impugned Ext.P5, all that the petitioners had pleaded before the Managing Director of KSRTC at the time of hearing was that they were unaware of the Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2001. The Managing Director concluded that the said argument cannot be accepted because ignorance of standing orders cannot be made an excuse for violating the same and causing revenue loss. It was held that the petitioners, being Unit Officers, ought to be aware of all the important directions and ought to comply with them. It is accordingly that the impugned Ext.P5 has been issued for recovery of Rs.1,000/- per month towards the realisation of WP(C)25531/03 -: 3 :- loss till recovery of the entire loss is effected. 3.While recovery of loss is not prescribed as a condition of service, it could be enforced as a measure of punishment or for recoveries simpliciter only if actual loss is proved. Even going by the last sentence of the impugned order, the recovery is to continue till the entire loss is realised, meaning thereby that the total loss is not even finalized. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders do not stand. In the result, this writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned orders, namely, Exts.P1, P4 and P5. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/300609