M G MOHAMMED TABIB S/O ABDUL GHANI Vs. THE DIRECTOR (P AND E) KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE 560027 AND THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MYSORE URBAN DIVISION MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the petitioner. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 09.09.2011 produced at Annexure 'G' passed by respondent No. 2 and also for a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representations of the petitioner dated 28.09.2011 and 02.12.2011 produced at Annexures 'H' and 'K' respectively.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Badali Conductor in 1987. His services were confirmed in 1992. However, in 2011, domestic enquiry was initiated against him on the charge that excess cash was found in his possession. In the meanwhile, the petitioner underwent treatment for eyesight problem. Doctor gave a certificate inter alia stating that the petitioner has become unfit to perform the duties of a Conductor. Having regard to the same, the petitioner submitted an application on 06.06.2011 for grant of retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The 2 - respondent issued an endorsement dated 29.06.2011 rejecting the request of the petitioner for VRS. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted a report against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority, by accepting the enquiry report imposed punishment on the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent not to act on the application filed for VRS. Without giving personal hearing and without considering the medical report, the second respondent, abruptly, has passed the order on 09.09.2011 treating that the petitioner has voluntary resigned. Thereafter, the petitioner filed further two representations to recall that order. The said applications have not been considered by the first respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner though had sought for VRS on the ground that he had eyesight problem, it was rejected by the second respondent as per endorsement dated 29.06.2011 inter alia stating that the petitioner was not qualified for VRS and the disciplinary proceedings were also pending against him. Subsequently, the petitioner had made a representation on 22.07.2011 requesting the first respondent not to act on his representation for VRS. However, by the impugned order produced at Annexure 'G', the second respondent, without affording opportunity to the petitioner and without considering his subsequent representation, has accepted the request of the petitioner for VRS. In my opinion, Annexure 'G' has no reference to the application filed by the petitioner on 22.07.2011. The question as to whether the petitioner is unfit or fit to continue in job and whether he is entitled for VRS., should have been considered after giving proper hearing to the petitioner. Hence, Annexure 'G' requires to be quashed.