J. Biju v. Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2016/23RD ASHADHA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 20256 of 2016 (F) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **J.BIJU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.JOYKUTTY, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KOTTAVATTOM P.O., KOLLAM-691 322.** **BY ADV. SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1.THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.** **2.THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PUNALOOR DEPOT, KOLLAM - 691 001.** **3.THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOTTARAKKARA - 691 001.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-07-2016 ALONG WITH WPC.20268/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 20256 of 2016 (F)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------** - **P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.840/T/15/CTO DTD.7.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** - **P2 : TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.E2/3614/07/PLR DTD.11.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P3 : TRUE COPY OF CASH RECEIPT NO.62190 DTD.10.9.2007 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF SSLC IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONDUCTOR'S LICENCE NO.24/470/2001 DTD.8.5.2007 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE ZONAL OFFICER, ZONE-II, KOLLAM.** - **P7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.8.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.** - **P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.28.1.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.** - **P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.30.3.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.** - **P10 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.14.12.2015 IN WPC NO.37230/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ----------------------------------------------- **W.P.(C). Nos.20256 & 20268 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of July, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging termination of the petitioners from the list of empanelled conductors (Employment Exchange) from the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter called “the Corporation”, and seeking for other related reliefs. 2. In W.P.(C) No.20256 of 2016, petitioner joined duty as Empanelled Conductor under the Corporation having recommended by the Employment Exchange in 2007. According to the petitioner, almost on completion of 7 years of service, on 1.11.2013, while petitioner was on off duty and travelling in a bus owned by the Corporation, proceeding to Punaloor from Thenkasi, the Conductor on duty in the bus asked the petitioner to take ticket and the petitioner showed his duty pass, which was not acceptable to the Conductor on duty. According to the petitioner, the duty pass provided to W.P.(C) 20256 & 20268 of 2016 2 the petitioner could not be used for travelling beyond the territorial limits of the State and there are limitations of distance even within the State. Thereupon petitioner has purchased a ticket from the Conductor and continued his travel. 3. It is also submitted that hot arguments took place between the petitioner and the Conductor on duty and thereupon, Conductor called the members of Special Squad and the Special Squad questioned the petitioner and confiscated his duty pass. Thereafter he was directed to collect the same from the 3[rd] respondent. According to the petitioner, the duty pass finally reached the hands of the 2[nd] respondent, who refused to return the duty pass to the petitioner and directed him not to attend duty and abruptly terminated from service without complying with any legal formalities known to law. Thereupon, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation before the Zonal Officer and was in constant contact with the office of the 1[st] respondent though he was assured reinstatement more than once, nothing has W.P.(C) 20256 & 20268 of 2016 3 been done so far to re-engage the petitioner for duty. In that circumstances, petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 dated 8.12.2014 before the then Chief Minister of Kerala and having found no response, petitioner again submitted a complaint before the Chief Minister with a copy to the 1[st] respondent, evident from Ext.P8. No action was taken in the said complaint also. Again petitioner submitted Ext.P9 before the Chief Minister. But, however, no action was taken. Thereupon petitioner and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20268/2016 filed W.P.(C) No.7230/2015 before this court, which was disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit independent representation to the 1[st] respondent and the 1[st] respondent was directed to consider the same and pass orders thereon. Copy of the judgment has produced as Ext.P10. Contention of the petitioner is that, the 1[st] respondent has passed Ext.P1 order, rejecting the request made by the petitioner. It is thus challenging Ext.P1, petitioner has approached this court. 4. Petitioner in W.P.(C) 20268/2016 joined the service as W.P.(C) 20256 & 20268 of 2016 4 Empanelled Conductor in 2007 through Employment Exchange under the Corporation. Petitioner has also completed 7 years of service. On 29.6.2007, while functioning as Conductor in a Fast Passenger bus proceeding to Trivandrum, vehicle was intercepted by Special Squad, who made a report against the petitioner stating that, he did not issue ticket to one of the lady passengers boarded the bus from Punaloor depot. According to the petitioner, while issuing ticket there was a problem with the ticketing machine. Therefore, petitioner issued a hand written ticket. The passenger later complained that she had actually demanded two tickets instead of one. The bus was directed to be taken to Anchal depot, where cash bag of the petitioner was checked by the officials. According to the petitioner, nothing unusual or disproportionate was found in the money bag. Therefore, the bus was permitted to proceed further to Trivandrum. 5. It is contended by the petitioner that, the rival group of the Trade Union intervened and the petitioner was W.P.(C) 20256 & 20268 of 2016 5 summoned to Kottarakkara depot, where his statements were recorded and duty pass was confiscated. He was abruptly terminated from service without complying with any legal formalities known to law. Along with the petitioner in the other writ petition, in compliance with the direction contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) 37230/2015, petitioner submitted a representation before the 1[st] respondent, which was rejected by Ext.P1 order. 6. The respondent Corporation has filed statement in the writ petition controverting the allegations and statements and demands made in the writ petition. That apart it is contended that, petitioners who were Empanelled Conductors indulged themselves in illegal activities and therefore, it was on the basis of misbehavior on the part of petitioners that they were removed from the list of Empanelled Conductors. So far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) 20268/2016 is concerned, it is contended that the said petitioner was found guilty of having committed fraud in ticket issuing while on duty on 27.11.2013 by issuing one faded ticket when asked for two W.P.(C) 20256 & 20268 of 2016 6 tickets by a passenger, after collecting the exact fare for two tickets from passenger, with deliberate intention to misappropriate the revenue of the Corporation, petitioner did not issue ticket from the ticketing machine. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, perused the pleadings and documents on record. 8. The prime contention raised by the petitioners is that petitioners were not provided with opportunity to prove their innocence with respect to the allegations raised against them by the respondents. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the decision in **Mohanan v. KSRTC** [2015 (3) KLT 18] rendered by this court in W.P.(C) 37230/2015 dated 4.12.2015 wherein a learned Single Judge of this court held that if there is a sigma cast upon even on an empanelled conductor, an opportunity shall be provided to prove his innocence preferably by conducting enquiry or by providing an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel contended that 1[st] respondent has not conducted any enquiry and only provided W.P.(C) 20256 & 20268 of 2016 7 an opportunity of hearing on the basis of the representations submitted by the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners are also entitled to get the benefit of the said judgment. Therefore, learned counsel contended that since no enquiry is conducted, Ext.P1 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness or illegality. 9. Per contra learned Standing Counsel for the corporation submitted that in the judgment cited supra, this court only held that either an opportunity of hearing or an enquiry is to be conducted. Therefore, pursuant to the direction issued by this court in Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C) 37230/2013 dated 14.12.2015, representations were received from the petitioners and thereupon they were heard and a decision was taken as per Ext.P1 order. 10. Now the question is whether any interference is required in Ext.P1 order ? On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is categoric and clear that each and every points put forth by the petitioners were considered by the 1[st] respondent and has taken a decision that, petitioners are not reliable persons to retain in the list of Empanelled Conductors. Therefore, W.P.(C) 20256 & 20268 of 2016 8 the entire circumstances were taken into account by the 1[st] respondent and has passed a speaking order, I do not think that the petitioners have made out any case so as to assail Ext.P1 order. I do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or other legal infirmities in Ext.P1 order passed in both the writ petitions enabling this court to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, writ petitions fail and accordingly the same are dismissed. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** smv 12.07.2016