IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25531 of 2003(M)
1. P.GOPAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
2. K.D.MOHANAN S/O. DAMODARAN,
3. K.V.JOHNY S/O. VARGHESE,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :29/06/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.25531 of 2003-M
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioners were Assistant Transport Officers
in KSRTC. On ground that they retained some
Conductors to function as Clerks disregarding the
directions issued to the contrary by the KSRTC,
the employer decided to recover from them the
loss allegedly caused to it by the said
commissions and omissions of the petitioners.
Pending assessment of actual loss, decision was
taken for interim recovery. That led to an
earlier round of litigation resulting in Ext.P3
judgment directing that the petitioners will be
heard on the matter before a final decision is
taken. Pursuant to that, after affording the
petitioners an opportunity of hearing, the
impugned Ext.P5 order has been issued.
WP(C)25531/03 -: 2 :-
2.According to the employer, by Office Memorandum
dated 5.7.2001, directions were issued regarding
the engagement of Conductors on other duty in
non-line duties/light duties. The failure of the
petitioners, who had supervisory roles in office,
resulted in the Corporation unnecessarily paying
salaries at rates available for Conductors,
though those persons were permitted to do
clerical duties. Going by the impugned Ext.P5,
all that the petitioners had pleaded before the
Managing Director of KSRTC at the time of hearing
was that they were unaware of the Office
Memorandum dated 5.7.2001. The Managing Director
concluded that the said argument cannot be
accepted because ignorance of standing orders
cannot be made an excuse for violating the same
and causing revenue loss. It was held that the
petitioners, being Unit Officers, ought to be
aware of all the important directions and ought
to comply with them. It is accordingly that the
impugned Ext.P5 has been issued for recovery of
Rs.1,000/- per month towards the realisation of
WP(C)25531/03 -: 3 :-
loss till recovery of the entire loss is
effected.
3.While recovery of loss is not prescribed as a
condition of service, it could be enforced as a
measure of punishment or for recoveries
simpliciter only if actual loss is proved. Even
going by the last sentence of the impugned order,
the recovery is to continue till the entire loss
is realised, meaning thereby that the total loss
is not even finalized. Under such circumstances,
the impugned orders do not stand.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed
quashing the impugned orders, namely, Exts.P1, P4
and P5. No costs.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/300609