M K SUKUMARAN MUNDAPLACKAL HOUSE Vs. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant in W.A. No. 2551 of 2002 was dismissed from the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (in short "KSRTC") by proceedings of the Executive Director dated 7.9.1998 on the basis of enquiry report dated 2.2.1998 holding him guilty of the charges leveled against him pertaining to pilferage of diesel from buses parked at Muvattupuzha garage of the KSRTC. On 21.11.1997 at about 01.30 hrs. it was found that diesel has been stolen from the parked KSRTC buses at Muvattupuzha garaged by way of pilfering with the help of duty Guard. Guard was questioned about incident and it was understood that the writ petitioner who was driver of the KSRTC was in the habit of pilfering diesel during right from the parked buses for unlawful gain. Matter was reported to Muvattupuzha police station and Crime No. 595/97 under Sections 379 and 34 IPC was registered. Investigation was made by the police and the writ petitioner was identified as the man who had committed theft of diesel from the parked KSRTC vehicles. On inspection it was detected that 35 and 30 litres of diesel was lost from bus No.TR 172 and P 189 respectively during the midnight of 20.11.1997 and the petitioner was therefore suspended from service on 22.11.1997 and was charge sheeted under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.

(2.) An enquiry officer was appointed who conducted detailed enquiry. Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 2.2.1998 holding him guilty of the charge leveled against him. Based on the report he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, Managing Director of the KSRTC, which was dismissed as per order dated 20.12.1998. Petitioner took up the matter in revision before the Appellate Tribunal, but the Tribunal by order dated 15.01.2000 dismissed the appeal. However, punishment was modified to one of compulsory retirement from service from the date of removal. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner approached this court.

(3.) Learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order but opined, that there was no proper enquiry. Learned single judge also found fault with the inept handling of the case by the KSRTC and found it not possible to conduct a re-enquiry. Though learned single judge confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal direction was given to the KSRTC to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner by way of liquidated damages. Aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner preferred W.A.No. 2551 of 2002 and the KSRTC W.A.No. 2906 of 2002.