Court upheld disciplinary action asserting due process and existence of an alternate remedy.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is terminated from the services of the KSRTC, seeks to quash Exts.P1 and P3 and to reinstate the petitioner in service.

2. The petitioner entered service under the KSRTC as Driver in the year 2011. The petitioner states that while operating a bus on 28.02.2023, an Enfield Bullet hit on the left side of the bus, resulting in death of two youths. An enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report found the petitioner guilty. The 3^rd respondent passed Ext.P1 order dated

16.02.2024 terminating the service of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal which was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order dated 06.01.2025. The petitioner states that Exts.P1 and P3 orders are passed without applying mind to the final report and mahazar prepared by the police. The petitioner states that the enquiry officer has categorically stated that the accident was not due to the deliberate action of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority did not independently decide the case and instead sought direction from the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the petitioner therefore became redundant, contends the petitioner.

4. The respondents filed counter affidavit. The respondents submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were conducted complying with the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer has found the petitioner as guilty. The disciplinary authority considered the material available and concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and consequently imposed order of termination. The Appellate Authority also perused the records and upheld the punishment imposed. The petitioner has effective alternate remedy against Exts.P1 and P3. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, urged the respondents.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

6. The petitioner has an effective alternate remedy to file a revision before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the KSRTC Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1981. The Tribunal has been constituted invoking the powers conferred under Section 45 (2) of the Road Transport Corporation Act . Exts.P1 and P3 orders can be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal.

In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is hence dismissed.

Sd/-