Disciplinary proceedings against Corporation employees must adhere to service rules and are not governed by Article 311 protections.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 2286/2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had challenged Ext.P13 order of removal from service. The appellant was appointed as a regular driver in the respondent Corporation on 13.07.2013. He met with an accident in 2019 whereby his vertebra was affected and was suffering from frequent intolerable pain. The appellant remained unauthorizedly absent. He submitted a Medical Certificate, but however, he was not permitted to join on the ground that there were oral instructions, not to permit the appellant to join. The appellant made several representations, but to no avail. The appellant was kept out of service for 4 years. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued and proceedings under Kerala Civil Service, (Classifications Control and Appeal) Rules was initiated and punishment for removal from service was passed.

3. The learned Single Judge dealing with the submissions of the appellant dismissed the Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the grounds raised in the Writ Petition, particularly Rule 13(2)(b)(v) and (vi) of the Rules, where the dismissal or removal can be made by the appointing authority or the higher authority. The said Rule is based on the general principles of the Constitutional law embedded in Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. The above Service Rule does not permit any delegation to any sub-ordinate authority and in the absence of such delegation, in the service Rules, the general delegation for administrative and routine day to day purposes by the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1950) cannot be imported to defeat the statutory law embedded in the Rules. Therefore the learned Single Judge without referring to the aforesaid Rules, dismissed the Writ Petition which shows clear non-application of mind.

4. Secondly, it is contended that the impugned order at Ext.R1A is issued by the incompetent authority under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1950, as the Officer passing the order is an employee of the Government and not of the Corporation. The delegation of power is only in respect of day to day functioning of the Corporation and power of delegation is an omnibus power which prescribes that all powers and duties of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Managing Director can be delegated to an Officer of the Corporation. He contended that when such power is provided for delegation, the Rules are to be read in conjunction with the said power and cannot be read in interrogation of the Statutory prescription. Learned counsel further argued that principles of natural justice have not been followed and there is procedural error in conduct of the enquiry. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel further contended that when there is conflict between service and general rules, service rule ought to have been followed when it relates to disciplinary case. Moreover, the 3^rd respondent is not the appointing authority whereas the Managing Director is the appointing authority under (2) of the Act of 1950. On these grounds, the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the Writ Petition needs to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge in all, had considered 4 submissions. They are as follows:

1. the 3^rd respondent is the not co