S. BABY Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSRTC'), While the petitioner was working in the Kilimanoor unit of the KSRTC, he, was charge sheeted alleging misconduct. The misconduct alleged against the petitioner is that, on 17.5.1994, he along with another conductor manhandled one Dharmaseelan at his residence, who was an empanelled driver in the KSRTC, for his non-participation in the strike called by the KSRTC employees. The petitioner was placed under suspension by Ext. P1 order dated 25.6.1994 of the Assistant Transport Officer, Kilimanoor. A reading of Ext. P1 order would show that, Crime No. 140/1994 of Kadakkal Police Station was registered against the petitioner and one J. Gopakumar, another conductor in the Kilimanoor unit of the KSRTC, on a charge that, on 17.5.1994 at about 20.00 hrs., the petitioner and the aforesaid Gopakumar assaulted Sri. S. Dharmaseelan, who was working as an empanelled driver in the Kilimanoor depot of the KSRTC, at his house for the reason that he had reported for duty on 17.5.1994, the first day of the strike. The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who submitted Ext. P2 Enquiry Report, concluding that the charge levelled against the petitioner stands proved and he is guilty of the charge. As seen from Ext. P3, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Though the charge proved against the petitioner is of serious nature, which deserves maximum punishment, the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view and imposed a punishment of withholding of the next increment for a period of one year, with cumulative effect, and it was also ordered that the period of suspension would be treated as eligible leave.

(2.) As borne out from Ext. P4 judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottarakkara dated 26.8.1995 in C.C. No. 657 of 1994, the case charge sheeted against the petitioner and another ended in acquittal. A reading of Ext. P4 judgment would show that, the injured, who was examined as PW1, was declared hostile and it was brought out in his cross-examination that, the case was settled between the parties. Though the injured filed a compounding petition, it was rejected on a finding that some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable. Further, the independent witness, who was examined as PW2, was also declared hostile and it was in such circumstances the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused and hence acquitted them under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) Challenging Ext. P3 order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed Ext. P5 appeal before the Managing Director of the KSRTC, the first respondent herein, contending that, the entire period during which he was kept out of service in connection with the case may be treated as duty for all service benefits. The Appellate Authority considered Ext. P5 appeal on merits and allowed the same by Ext. P6 order dated 7.3.1998. Last paragraph of Ext. P6 order reads thus:--