Termination Order Not To Be Issued For Unauthorized Absence From Duty For Less Than 5 Years: Kerala High Court

Sajesh N. T. filed the petition following an order issued by the Executive Director (Administration) of KSRTC dated 01.10.2018 the petitioner from service invoking the power under Rule 24.

According to the petition, the petitioner entered service in 2013, but owing to his mother's illness, had applied for leave from 18.07.2017 to 31.12.2017. However, he could not join duty after expiry of leave due to the spread of Nippa epidemic in the locality. This was informed to the office of the respondents.

It was also mentioned that the District Transport Officer intimated the petitioner that he had failed to report for duty from 18.07.2017 onwards, thereby directing him to report for duty before 31.05.2018.

Since he did not receive a positive response after contacting the District Transport Officer seeking one week's time to join duty, the petitioner sent a representation on 02.06.2018 explaining the circumstances which prevented him for reporting for duty on the said date. Despite all this, the petitioner was removed from service.

Adv. N. Sasidharan Unnithan while arguing for the petitioner alleged that KSRTC did not consider the leave application while calculating the duration in which the petitioner failed to report for duty. More importantly, the respondents could not have invoked Rule 24 since the unauthorised absence did not cross 5 years.

To substantiate this argument, the petitioner pointed out that this Court had held that power under Rule 24 cannot be invoked in cases where there is unauthorised absence of less than five years, in two recent judgments, while highlighting that one of these decisions were delivered by a Division Bench.

The Single Bench comprising of Justice T.R. Ravi observed that in the light of the cited authoritative pronouncement by the Division Bench of this Court the said order is liable to be set aside.

The Court thereby directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all associated benefits. However, while allowing the petition, the Bench made it clear that the respondents are free to initiate any action against the petitioner under the provisions contained in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, if so warranted.

Sajesh N.T v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation