V.SOMASEKHARAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was suspended in the year 2002 on an allegation of having issued "dead tickets" while he was acting as a conductor in a super fast bus operating between Angamaly - Thiruvananthapuram. The allegation was that he had, by the said misconduct, misappropriated Rs.786/ - being the charge of the tickets so issued. The petitioner was once suspended and an enquiry was initiated in the year 2002 itself. The domestic enquiry concluded in finding the petitioner guilty and the disciplinary authority, accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, removed him from service. The petitioner was unsuccessful in an appeal filed before the Department. But the enquiry itself was set aside in a departmental revision. A fresh enquiry was directed in the revisional order, which proceedings has given rise to the present proceedings.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , a fresh enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was again dismissed from service. The petitioner raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') before the Government which dispute was referred by Ext.P1. Petitioner has produced the Claim Petition preferred by him before the Tribunal as also the counter statement filed by the Management as Exts.P2 and P3. On the petitioner raising preliminary objection with respect to the enqiry conducted, Ext.P4 preliminary order was passed wherein the enquiry was found to have been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal clearly found that the enquiry held was a farce and had been proceeded with, without applying the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer's report hence, was set aside as per the preliminary order dated 12.10.2009.

(3.) THE KSRTC, who is the employer has filed a counter affidavit asserting their right to adduce fresh evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner, since the enquiry was found to be one held in violation of principles of natural justice. The counter affidavit also speaks of 34 punishments imposed on the petitioner on different occasions. That however, is not germane for consideration of the specific dispute raised in the present writ petition nor can it sway this Court in considering the issue whether the employer ought to have raised a prayer for adducing fresh evidence in the written statement itself.