A SHAJAHAN S/O ABDUL KAREEM Vs. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been placed under suspension by Exhibit P1 order dated 15.4.2017 on the ground that he refused to obey the instructions given by the Vehicle Supervisor and did not operate a local trip from Vithura to Anappetti. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had reported for duty at 4 a.m on 6.4.2017 and the log sheet given to him would show that he has operated a long trip from Vithura to Munnar. It is stated that Exhibit P3 would show that the driver in respect of the trip from Vithura to Anappetti was one U Prakash and that a substitute driver, one S.Aravind was allotted to the same trip. It is stated that though U Prakash was not present for duty, Exhibit P11 log sheet would show that S.Aravind had reported for duty at 4.40 a.m and that he was available to operate the trip from Vithura to Anappetti. It is therefore contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner to have been directed to attend duty on the said trip and that the disciplinary action was therefore totally vitiated. The petitioner contends that, pending proceedings, he had been reinstated in service, but had been directed to join service at a city depot. He contends that he would not join duty due to severe ailments of his wife. He has also submitted Exhibit P7 appeal before the 1st respondent along with the copies of all relevant documents to show that the very basis on which disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him were incorrect and that he had not been assigned duty as stated in Exhibit P1 order dated 15.4.2017. By Exhibit P8 judgment, this Court had directed consideration of Exhibit P7 appeal preferred by the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal had been dismissed by Exhibit P9 order dated 30.11.2017 without considering the issue raised by the petitioner on merits. It is stated in Exhibit P9 order that the petitioner has refused to do the duty on 6.4.2017 disobeying the orders of the higher officials and therefore he was not liable to be readmitted to duty at Vithura. It is also stated that as per the transfer norms transfer on administrative grounds due to disciplinary issues can be reviewed only after completion of six months of active duty at the transferred unit.