K P MANOJ Vs. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Guard, in the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the `KSRTC' for short) was found to be drunk while on duty on 21.8.2010. He was subjected to breathalyser test and it was after such test that he was found to be drunk while on duty. By order dated 6.9.2010, the Executive Director (Vigilance) of the Corporation placed him along with two others, who were also guilty of being drunk while on duty, under suspension. Thereafter, Ext.P3 memo of charges dated 27.9.2010 accompanied by a statement of allegations of misconduct was served on him. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P4 reply. While so, the Executive Director (Administration) of the Corporation reinstated the petitioner in service by order dated 7.10.2010. But he was directed to be posted at Thrissur. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 representation before the Managing Director of the Corporation requesting that he may be permitted to continue at Mananthavady. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 order of suspension and Ext.P5 order transferring the petitioner, upon reinstatement in service, to Thrissur.

(2.) I heard Sri.C.V.Milton, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation. It is evident from Ext.P2 order that the petitioner was found to be drunk while on duty. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of suspension was not warranted. After the order of suspension took effect, Ext.P3 memo of charges accompanied by a statement of allegations of misconduct was served on him and pending enquiry, the disciplinary authority thought that pending enquiry, the petitioner need not be kept under suspension and he was reinstated in service. However, upon such reinstatement, he was posted in the Thrissur. In my opinion, the decision of the authority to post the petitioner at Thrissur pending enquiry into Ext.P3 memo of charges also cannot be said to be illegal. The petitioner who was found to be drunk while on duty at Mananthavady cannot, so long as the enquiry into the said charge is pending, claim that he has a right to be posted at Mananthavady, on reinstatement in service. I, therefore, find no merit in the challenge Ext.P5 also.

(3.) I accordingly hold that here is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. The respondents shall expedite the enquiry into Ext.P3 memo of charges and finalise the same expeditiously and at any rate within three months from today. Depending on the outcome of the enquiry, it will be open to the petitioner to move the Managing Director of the Corporation for being posted back to Mananthavady.