IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1646 of 2008(U)
1. K.GOPI, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTION DIRECTOR (OPERATION)
3. THE EXECUTION DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.JUSTINE
For Respondent :SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :20/03/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.1646 of 2008
-------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
While working as Inspector Grade I in the Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation {for short ‘the
Corporation’}, the petitioner responded to Ext.P1
notification, by which the first respondent Corporation called
for the confidential reports in respect of those persons, who
were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Transport
Officer. The period of review was 2004-05, 2005-06 and
2007 (upto 30.6.2007). The petitioner’s confidential reports
for the said period were called for. But he was not included
in the list as per Ext.P2, though his juniors’ names were
included. As evidenced by Ext.P8, the Departmental
Promotion Committee had considered the reports of
candidates and found that, a punishment of bar of increment
for one year without cumulative effect, was imposed on the
petitioner as per order dated 21.6.2006. Similarly another
W.P.(C).No.1646 of 2008
:: 2 ::
punishment for three months’ without cumulative effect was
also imposed, as per order dated 25.2.2005. It was found
that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered, as he
had suffered the punishment during the relevant period.
That has been challenged in this writ petition.
2. According to the petitioner, the stand taken by
the Corporation is wrong, firstly because the punishment did
not relate to a delinquency during the period, but much
earlier. Secondly, the punishments in question are minor in
nature viz., barring of an increment without cumulative
effect. It is also pointed out that the second punishment of
bar of increment for three months without cumulative effect
actually came to be suffered only after the relevant period.
3. The Corporation, in its counter affidavit, has
taken a stand that, apart from the punishments, the
Departmental Promotion Committee has taken into account
the earlier history of the petitioner as well.
W.P.(C).No.1646 of 2008
:: 3 ::
4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel Sri.Unnikrishnan, who was requested to
assist this court as Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for
the Corporation.
5. Reference is made to Ext.P5 judgment of this
court where, in the matter of employees of the Corporation,
it was noted that as per the Rules prevailing in the
Corporation, the officer/employee is entitled to be
considered for promotion under the following circumstances:
(a) If an officer/employee has been
punished within the review period and
the punishments are of major nature
should not be considered for
promotion;
(b) If an officer/employee committed an
offence prior to the review period and
has been imposed punishment during
the review period shall be considered
for promotion;
(c) Those who have been awarded
punishment of increment bar for a
W.P.(C).No.1646 of 2008
:: 4 ::
period less than one (1) year without
cumulative effect shall be considered.”
6. It is pointed out that the punishment is not a
major punishment and that though the punishment has been
imposed during the period, the offence was committed prior
to the review period. The dictum laid down therein supports
the case of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the bar of
increment without cumulative effect is not a major
punishment and it should not be taken into account for the
purpose of selection conducted by the Departmental
Promotion Committee.
7. Obviously, the petitioner’s case is eligible to be
considered afresh by the corporation. The petitioner has
since retired on 30.6.2008 and he might be eligible for
notional promotion and consequential benefits.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Ext.P8 is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The
W.P.(C).No.1646 of 2008
:: 5 ::
corporation shall place the petitioner’s name in the next
Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Assistant
Transport Officer which shall consider his case in the light of
the observations above and, if he is otherwise entitled to, he
shall be given all consequential benefits. Needful shall be
done at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I place on record my appreciation for the service
rendered by the learned counsel Sri.Unnikrishnan as Amicus
curiae.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//