IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4921 of 2010(M)
1. AVIVYAN K.S., AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
3. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN,
4. SRI.P.M.RASAK,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/02/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.4921 OF 2010 (M)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s grievance is against Ext.P3 order by which he is
transferred and posted to Thiruvananthapuram depot of the
KSRTC.
2. Petitioner is a driver who was posted at the Angamaly
Station of the KSRTC. According to the petitioner, on 16.11.2009
an incident happened which irritated the respondents 3 and 4. It
is stated that the petitioner was discharging duties thereafter
and that on 11.1.2010 he felt giddiness and as a result of which
he had to go to hospital. It is stated that on 13.1.2010 the 4th
respondent summoned the petitioner for an enquiry and called
upon the petitioner to explain why he did not discharge duty on
11.1.2010.
3. Petitioner submits that, he explained the matter to the
3rd respondent but however he has now been issued Ext.P3
transfer order. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, petitioner filed Ext.P4
representation before the first respondent. It is thereafter that this
writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3.
WPC.No.4921 /09
:2 :
4. Irrespective of the version as given in the writ petition,
going by the contents of Ext.P3, the reason stated is that the
petitioner refused to operate service on 11.1.2010, which caused
cancellation of one of the services. If it is so, it is certainly an
administrative reason and respondents cannot be faulted for what
they have done.
5. On the other hand if there is any truth in what the
petitioner submits, this certainly is a matter for the first
respondent to examine and consider. Therefore while the
petitioner shall comply with Ext.P3, it is directed that the first
respondent shall consider Ext.P4 representation filed by the
petitioner and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within 4 weeks from the date
of production of a coy of the judgment along with a copy of this
writ petition.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WPC.No.4921 /09
:3 :