V. Rajesh Kumar v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shaji P. Chaly
Judgment Date: 2016-06-30
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P7 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the issue, taking into account the documents produced and providing an opportunity to give evidence in the subject issue. The reconsideration must be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P7 quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration with opportunity to give evidence within six weeks

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. Rajesh Kumar (S.N.V Sadanam)

Respondents

Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram
Zonal Officer Zone II, KSRTC, Kollam
District Transport Officer, Kollam
Assistant Transport Officer, Kottarakkara, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Mohanakannan
• Sri (Smt.) A.R. Pravitha

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, SC, KSRTC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks reinstatement of the petitioner in the list of empanelled conductors of KSRTC and to quash Ext.P7, the order declining relief. The petitioner, an empanelled conductor since 2007, was removed in July 2013 after a Checking Inspector found an excess fare of Rs.136 in his bag, alleging collected fare beyond the recorded amount. The petitioner claimed that the balance Rs.140 had already been deposited with the depot (as per Ext.P2) and that the passenger had collected it (Ext.P3). He had filed petitions (Exts.P4–P6) and representations, but Ext.P7 was issued after a hearing, denying relief. The respondents maintain that KSRTC can remove empanelled conductors for malpractice and that the petitioner had no legal right to remain in the panel. The core legal issue is whether Ext.P7 is vitiated by illegality or infirmity warranting interference. The Court, invoking the principle from Moahanan v. KSRTC that stigma on an empanelled employee necessitates an opportunity to prove innocence, holds that Ext.P7 cannot stand as the petitioner must be afforded a fuller opportunity, preferably via an inquiry. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration with evidence-taking within six weeks.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Natural justice (opportunity of hearing / audi alteram partem)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that removal from the empanelled conductors list without a proper inquiry or an adequate opportunity to prove innocence violates the principles of natural justice. Citing Moahanan v. KSRTC (2015) to argue that stigma attached to an empanelled employee requires an enquiry or at least a fuller opportunity to present evidence, he seeks reinstatement in the panel. He points to Exts.P2–P6 to show deposits and representations and argues Ext.P7 was issued after inadequate process.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that KSRTC has the power to remove empanelled conductors for misconduct and that the petitioner had no legal right to remain on the panel. Ext.P7 followed due opportunity of hearing, and the removal stems from alleged malpractice; hence there is no illegality in the order. They rely on the general prerogative of the employer to remove empanelled personnel and contend that the writ petition should be dismissed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Moahanan v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation	2015(3) KLT 18	Positive	The court relies on this decision to emphasize that stigma in relation to an empanelled conductor requires an inquiry or enhanced opportunity to prove innocence; thus Ext.P7 is set aside to permit due process.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 38264 of 2015 (G)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **V. RAJESH KUMAR "S.N.V SADANAM" KUNNATHUR P.O, NEDIYAVILA KOLLAM DISTRCT.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** ## **1. MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANGHAPURAM,PIN-695001** ## **2. ZONAL OFFICER** **ZONE - II,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691001** **3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KOLLAM, PIN-691001** **4. ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN-691 532** **R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 38264 of 2015 (G)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **-----------------------** ## **P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTERDT. 31.8.2007.** ## **P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DT. 16.7.2013.** **P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 17.7.2013.** - **P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19.7.2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 17.12.2014.** **P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 1.4.2015.** ## **P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.1.2016 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **-----------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **dlk** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J** ## **--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 38264 of 2015** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 30[th] day of June, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to reinstate the petitioner in the list of empanelled conductors in the respondent Corporation and also seeking to quash Ext.P7 order passed by the first respondent declining the said relief to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:- Petitioner was an empanelled conductor in KSRTC from the year 2007. On a service from Kottarakkara to Guruvayur, on 16.7.2013, due to the damaging of the ticketing machine, petitioner could not imprint the amount but written the figure on the ticket and gave it to a passenger. The Checking Inspector on inspection found extra amount of Rs.136/- in the petitioner's bag and reported the amount, as collected fare. According to the petitioner, vide Ext.P2 he has deposited the balance W.P.(C) No. 38264 of 2015 2 amount of Rs.140/-, to be collected by a passenger, at the depot and the same was collected by one Manoj vide Ext.P3. However, petitioner was removed from the panel on 28.7.2013. Even though, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent, no action was taken. Consequent to which Ext.P5 representation was submitted before the Chief Minister of Kerala, which was forwarded to the first respondent. Since no action was taken on the same, Ext.P6 representation was filed. However, considering the request made by the petitioner Ext.P7 order is passed by the first respondent after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is thus aggrieved by Ext.P7, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a joint statement refuting the allegations, claims and demands made by the petitioner. The crux of the contention advanced by the petitioner in this statement is that, petitioner was only an W.P.(C) No. 38264 of 2015 3 empanelled engagee with the respondent Corporation and therefore, the Corporation is legally entitled at any point of time to remove the petitioner from the list of empanelled conductors. That apart, it is also contended that, petitioner has no manner of legal right to make any claim to retain him in the panel of empanelled conductors. So also it is urged that, due to certain malpractice only, the petitioner was removed from the list of empanelled conductors. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the documents and pleadings on record. 5. The sole question to be considered in this writ petition is whether Ext.P7 order suffers from any illegality or other legal infirmities warranting interference of this Court by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. On a reading of Ext.P7 it is categoric and clear W.P.(C) No. 38264 of 2015 4 that petitioner was provided with an opportunity of hearing before the said order was passed. In Ext.P7 it is categorically stated that, there is some illegality on the part of the petitioner with respect to the additional amount found out by the checking inspector in the bag of the petitioner. However, petitioner has pressed into service the judgment rendered by this Court in Moahanan v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [2015(3) KLT 18], wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, even to an empanelled conductor, if there is a stigma cast upon, an opportunity shall be provided to prove his innocence preferably by conducting an enquiry, or at least by providing an opportunity of hearing. Taking cue from the principles of law laid down in the judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to produce evidence and prove his innocence. Taking into account the rival submissions and other ## W.P.(C) No. 38264 of 2015 5 factual and legal circumstances I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner shall be provided with an opportunity by conducting an enquiry to prove his innocence. True an opportunity of hearing was provided, but since a stigma is cast upon, I am of the considered opinion, an opportunity to prove his innocence shall be provided to the petitioner. Viewed in that manner, I think Ext.P7 cannot be sustained and requires interference of this Court. 7. Therefore, Ext.P7 order passed by the first respondent is set aside and there will be a further direction to the first respondent to reconsider the issue taking into account the documents produced by the petitioner and providing an opportunity to give evidence in the subject issue. The entire exercise shall be completed by the first respondent within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6 W.P.(C) No. 38264 of 2015 Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.** **dlk/30/6/**