IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 35546 of 2005(F)
1. A. FRANCIS, AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE),
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Dated :25/01/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.35546/2005
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a Conductor of the KSRTC. He was
suspended from service by Ext.P1 order dated 25.4.2002 on the
allegation of misappropriation of funds of the KSRTC by issuing
dead tickets etc. He was served with Ext.P2 charge sheet dated
6.6.2002. He submitted reply to the said charge sheet denying
the allegations against him. The disciplinary authority was
dissatisfied with the reply. So, an enquiry was held into the
misconduct of the petitioner. Based on the findings in the
enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of
removal from service by Order dated 29.11.2002. Petitioner
appealed against that order. First respondent appellant authority
affirmed the said punishment. He moved the KSRTC Appellate
Tribunal by filing a revision. The said revision was allowed by
Ext.P3 order dated 10.10.2003, setting aside the punishment.
The second respondent disciplinary authority was directed to
W.P.(C)35546/2005 2
reopen the enquiry and to allow him to cross examine one of the
witnesses of the management and also to allow him to adduce
defence evidence and to produce defence documents. Pursuant to
the said order of the Appellate Tribunal, the enquiry was again
completed and the punishment of compulsory retirement from
service was imposed on him on 22.5.2004 by the disciplinary
authority. Before the petitioner could prefer an appeal against the
said order, the appellate authority initiated proceedings to review
that order. The petitioner submits that when the said suo motu
proceedings were pending, the second respondent modified the
punishment of compulsory retirement from service as dismissal
from service. On 2.8.2004, the petitioner filed a representation
against the said punishment before the first respondent and
thereafter approached this Court. This Court, by Ext.P4 judgment
dated 11.10.2004, set aside the punishment order and directed
the appellate authority to consider the matter. The first
respondent, pursuant to the said judgment of this Court, issued
Ext.P5 order dated 4.12.2004 imposing a punishment of
W.P.(C)35546/2005 3
compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. The
petitioner challenged Ext.P5 order before the KSRTC Appellate
Tribunal. The Tribunal by Ext.P6 order dated 7.5.2005 set aside
Ext.P5 order and remanded the case to the second respondent
disciplinary authority with certain directions. In the meantime the
petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2005.
Pursuant to Ext.P5, the disciplinary authority issued Ext.P7 show
cause notice along with Ext.P8 enquiry report proposing to
impose the penalty of removal from service. He submitted Ext.P9
explanation. Considering the said explanation, the second
respondent disciplinary authority again passed Ext.P10 order
imposing the punishment of removal from service. This writ
petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 mainly on the ground that no
punishment could have been imposed on him invoking the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the second respondent after his
superannuation on 31.3.2005. The respondents have filed a
detailed counter affidavit. They are supporting the impugned
order.
W.P.(C)35546/2005 4
2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned
counsel for the petitioner relied on the Full Bench decision of this
Court in Xavier v KSEB (1979 KLT 80). He also relied on the
decision of this Court in Raghavan Pillai v Travancore
Devaswom Board (1980 KLT 782). Those decisions laid down
the principle that once superannuation takes place, there is no
employee-employer relationship and the employer has no
disciplinary jurisdiction over the delinquent and no punishment
can be imposed.
3. The rules governing the disciplinary action of the
employees of the KSRTC are Kerala Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeals) Rules 1960. As per the said rules, once
the employee retires, no punishment under Rule-15 of the rules
could be imposed on a delinquent employee. But, of course, the
KSRTC can exercise its powers to withhold or withdraw his
pension or a part of it, whether permanently or for a short period
invoking powers under Rule-3 of Part III KSR. The said
provisions are also adopted by the KSRTC. This position is
W.P.(C)35546/2005 5
supported by various decisions of this Court including the one in
Jayarajan v State of Kerala (2001(3) KLT 929). But, the
learned counsel for the KSRTC submitted that the petitioner was
responsible for the delay in concluding the disciplinary
proceedings. He also canvasses the position that once the
punishment is set aside and a fresh punishment is imposed, the
same will relate to the original date of punishment. I think it is
difficult to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the
KSRTC. Even if the petitioner is responsible for the delay in
concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the same will not enable
the KSRTC to impose any punishment on him under Rule-15 of
the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, after his retirement.
Further, once the punishment of dismissal or removal from
service is set aside, an employee in service can be dismissed or
removed from service only prospectively. Therefore, the
contentions of the learned counsel for the KSRTC cannot be
accepted.
4. In the result, the impugned order Ext.P10 is quashed.
W.P.(C)35546/2005 6
This will not affect the powers, if any, of the KSRTC to take action
against the petitioner under Rule-3 of Part III KSR. The KSRTC
shall decide whether it can and whether it should proceed against
the petitioner as per Rule-3 of Part III KSR, within two months
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment; otherwise
the terminal benefits due to him shall be released to him, as per
the priority list of pensioners.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE
css/