← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/29617/2015disposed of

Chacko Varghese v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

2015-09-30Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/8TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 29617 of 2015 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- CHACKO VARGHESE S/O.KOSHY, PUTHOORAM VEEDU KUNNUMMA EAST, KAVALAM.P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 506 (INSPECTOR, CHENGANASSERY DEPOT) BY ADV. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- 1.

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023 2.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE) KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, STANDING COUNSEL, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 29617 of 2015 (E) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1-COPY OF THE MINUTES HELD ON 22.9.2015 EXHIBIT-P2- COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 21.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P3- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.5.2015 EXHIBIT-P4- COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 5.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P5-COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.5.2015 EXHIBIT-P6- COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 4.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P7- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.9.2015 EXHIBIT-P8-COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.9.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY SKS P.A. TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

--------------------- W.P (C) No.29617 of 2015 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The pendency of disciplinary proceedings evidenced by Exts.P2, P4 and P6 charge-sheets is allegedly blocking the promotion of the petitioner.

2.

All that the petitioner prays is for culmination of the disciplinary proceedings in order to entitle him to be considered for promotion.

3.

I direct the 2nd respondent to take the proceedings to a logical end within two months. Needless to say that the first respondent will consider the question of promotion of the petitioner dependent on the outcome.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

sks