Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
M.Shamsudheenkutty vs The Kerala State Road Transport on 11 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7865 of 2010(G)


1. M.SHAMSUDHEENKUTTY S/O MOHAMMED KUNJU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIG.),

3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/03/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
               --------------------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) NO.7865 OF 2010 (G)
               --------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, an order

passed by the 2nd respondent placing the petitioner under

suspension, pending disciplinary action. Petitioner is a vehicle

Supervisor in the Kottarakara Depot of the first respondent. It is on

the allegation that, on 17.2.2010, the petitioner misbehaved to the

Zonal Officer and made certain remarks which were contemptuous

of the superior officers, that the petitioner has been placed under

suspension, pending disciplinary action.

2. According to the petitioner, on 17.2.2010, the date on

which the alleged incident had happed, as he was feeling sick, he

reported to the hospital at 7 a.m. and thereafter came to his work

place. It is alleged that an incident of the type as alleged has not

happened. It is also his case that, even if any misconduct has been

committed, unless public interest and gravity of the misconduct

deserves, the employee should not be placed under suspension as

a matter of routine.

WPC.No. 7865/2010
:2 :

3. The truth or otherwise of the allegations constituting the

misconduct is a matter for enquiry to be conducted by the

disciplinary authority. At this stage, the question is whether Ext.P1

order of suspension justified. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the

allegation is that the petitioner has misbehaved to the Zonal Officer

and made certain statements which are contemptuous of the

superior officers. It is stated that a person working in the

Supervisory cadre has to be a model for others and by the aforesaid

act, he committed a grave misconduct warranting disciplinary

action and therefore he was placed under suspension.

4. Discipline is an internal matter, which is to be regulated by

the orders of the disciplinary authority and when the disciplinary

authority has, on the allegations made in Ext.P1, decided that the

petitioner should be placed under suspension, this court will not be

justified in imposing its view, on the views expressed by the

disciplinary authority. Therefore I do not think that Ext.P1 order of

suspension warrants interference on that ground.

5. However, there is substance in the case of the petitioner

that since he is due for retirement on 31.7.2010, disciplinary

WPC.No. 7865/2010
:3 :

enquiry should be expedited and concluded.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

respondents to expedite the disciplinary enquiry pursuant to Ext.P1

and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and at any rate

thin 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the

judgment.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.172 seconds.