Kerala High Court
Joseph Thomas vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
Author: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
TUESDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 21855 of 2009 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
JOSEPH THOMAS,
(INSPECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVALLA DEPOT
RETIRED.ON 30/4/2007), PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PANDY P.O.
ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
KSRTC, THIRUVALLA DEPOT.
3. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF KSRTC,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC
SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC
SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-12-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 21855 of 2009 (B)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 - COPY OF CHARGE SHEET NO.VLD4/001971/2000 DATED
14.03.200.
EXHIBIT P2 - COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P3 - COPY OF DETAILED ENQUIRY REPORT
EXHIBIT P4 - COPY OF ORDER NO.VLD4/001971/2000 DATED 17.02.2005.
EXHIBIT P5 - COPY OF ORDER NO.D.DIS.21332/07/APL DATED 26.11.2007.
EXHIBIT P6 - COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2009 IN R.P. NO.17/2008
ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF KSRTC.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sp
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 21855 of 2009
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is approaching this court aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, through which punishment of increment bar for one year with cumulative effect was imposed against him, along with regularisation of the period of suspension as leave without allowance. The punishment imposed was confirmed in Ext.P5 by the appellate authority and further in Ext.P6 by the revisional authority. It is challenging Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders, this writ petition is filed.
2. Memo of charges was issued against the petitioner alleging gross misconduct and dereliction of duty to the extent that he had received bribe from passengers for allowing to convey luggage inside the Bus and thereby caused revenue loss to the Corporation. It was also alleged that during inspection, excess cash to the tune of `920.50 was found in the Cash Bag, on 04.01.2000. It is evident that, on the basis of explanations WP(C). 21855 /2009 2 submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was conducted. Ext.P3 is the report of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found that there is no proof with respect to the alleged permission granted to passengers for taking their luggage inside the Bus. So also there is no proof regarding realisation of any excess cash from the passengers. But it is clearly proved that there was excess cash found in the Cash Bag, for which the petitioner could not submit any convincing explanations.
3. Based on the report of enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority proposing punishment of increment bar for two years with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted explanations stating that the cash found as excess in the bag was the amount to be paid as balance to 15 passengers travelling from Thiruvnanthapuram Air Port to Edappal. Having found the explanation as not convicing, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment. However, taking a lenient view the quantum of WP(C). 21855 /2009 3 punishment was reduced to increment bar for one year with cumulative effect. The period of suspension was regularised as leave without allowance.
4. In the appeal preferred against the order imposing punishment, the Managing Director of the Corporation found that the explanations offered with respect to the excess cash found was not convincing. It is mentioned that the contention of the petitioner that the amount found excess was unpaid balance of Rs.230/- each noted in the tickets of 4 passengers was found as not acceptable. Therefore interference was declined by the appellate authority.
5. The petitioner filed revision before the Tribunal. The revisional authority found that the petitioner had furnished statement at the time of inspection admitting availability of the excess amount and such statement was seen furnished without making any protest. It was noticed that the petitioner had signed in the 'service inspection report' without making any protest and during the enquiry he had conceded about the statement as well as his signature. Since the petitioner could not establish the WP(C). 21855 /2009 4 source of excess amount found in the Cash Bag with any convincing evidence, it is presumed that the excess amount was collected from passengers. On the basis of such findings the appellate Tribunal found that there is no impropriety or illegality in the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Therefore the revision petition was dismissed.
6. Contention of the petitioner is that he had submitted explanations before the Enquiry Officer in the form of a final statement, as per Ext.P2. But the Enquiry Officer has failed to take note of the said explanations. Primarily, there is no evidence to show that a statement as per Ext.P2 was submitted before the Enquiry Officer. However, in the report of enquiry all the contentions raised by the petitioner with respect to excess cash found in the Bag was recorded. Before the enquiry officer it is contended that the excess cash in the Bag was the balance amount due for refund to passengers, about which the Inspector has not made any enquiry and only directed remittance of the said amount with the Corporation. But the enquiry officer found WP(C). 21855 /2009 5 that the petitioner could not prove that any amount is due to the passengers as balance. Hence finding that there is no proper explanation offered with respect to excess cash, the enquiry officer had arrived at guilt of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no proof to the extent that the excess amount detected was received by the petitioner by way of bribe and therefore the punishment cannot be sustained. It is true that the enquiry officer had found that there is no convincing proof regarding collection of any excess amount from the passengers for permitting carriage of luggages within the Bus. Such a conclusion was arrived by the enquiry officer on the basis that the reporting Inspector has not entered the Bus and obtained statement from any passengers and it was only relying on the deposition of the Inspectors who checked the Bus that an allegation was raised to the effect that the passengers made complaint about realisation of excess charges. Therefore the Enquiry Officer found that the Inspector could not prove with convincing materials that passengers had made any complaint WP(C). 21855 /2009 6 about realisation of excess cash. But such a finding cannot be taken as advantages to the petitioner to conclude that there was no convincing proof with respect to any bribe or excess charges from the passengers. On the other hand, this court is inclined to agree with the findings of the appellate Tribunal that it was the onus on the part of the petitioner to give proper explanation with respect to excess cash found within the Bag. Eventhough the petitioner contended that the amount was the unpaid balance due to 4 passengers, there is no such version given at the time of inspection. Nor it is evident that any attempt was made to point out the passengers to the Inspecting team. Normally if any balance amount is due for refund to the passengers, it has to be noted on the ticket issued. The petitioner should have very well pointed out the passengers to whom the refund is to be made and should have convinced before the Inspectors by referring to the endorsements in the tickets. Having failed in furnishing any convincing explanation with respect to the excess amount, the petitioner cannot be exonerated merely on the basis that the enquiry officer had found that there is no conclusive proof WP(C). 21855 /2009 7 regarding receipt of bribe or excess charges. This is especially because of the fact that, the version regarding the amount due for refund to 4 passengers travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Edappal was not revealed or put forth at the time of inspection. Even in the explanations submitted to the disciplinary authority, the specific case of the petitioner was that the excess cash found in the Bag was the amount due for payment to 15 passengers travelling from the Air port to Edappal. Under such circumstance the impugned findings cannot be assailed on any valid ground.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not exactly remembering about the refund due to the passengers at the time when the inspection was concluded at Ernakulam depot. It is only after the Bus left from Ernakulam Station that he had realised that the excess amount was the unpaid balance due to 4 passengers. Such an explanation cannot be accepted by this court. Learned counsel had also pointed out that it was revealed before the authorities that the petitioner was in the habit of remitting excess amount even on WP(C). 21855 /2009 8 prior occasions and the said aspect was not considered by the disciplinary authority. As contended in the counter affidavit of the respondents, remittance of excess amount in the unit on previous occasion does not absolve the petitioner from the charge of possession of unaccounted balance which is a very huge amount, comparing with the remittances of nominal amounts of non-refunded balance made earlier.
9. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was based on findings arrived at in the enquiry conducted. The appellate authority had looked into various aspects of the factual contentions and confirmed the punishment. The revisional authority had also elaborately gone into details of the factual circumstances. Before this court in a writ petition under Article 226, a re-appreciation of the entire facts is not at all warranted. There is absolutely no irregularity or illegality with respect to the impugned order of the disciplinary authority. The proportionality of the punishment cannot be contended as excessive. Further this court cannot look into such aspects in a writ petition filed under Article 226.
WP(C). 21855 /2009 9
10. Learned counsel made an appeal to this court to show indulgence in modifying the order of the disciplinary authority to the extent of treating the period of suspension as eligible leave, instead leave without allowance. As already found this court is of the opinion that no interference with the order of the disciplinary authority, which is confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority, is warranted. Hence such a plea cannot be accepted .
In the result the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
pmn/
WP(C). 21855 /2009 10
WP(C). 21855 /2009 11
WP(C). 21855 /2009 12