AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice A.M. Shaffique
Petitioner challenges Ext. P3 order by the which he was terminated from the service on the ground of being involved in a crime involving offences under the Indian Penal Code. At the time of issuing Ext. P3, the petitioner was working as a conductor under the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext. P3 order of termination had been issued without giving him an opportunity to explain the situation arising out of the said criminal case. According to him, he was arrested and remanded under judicial custody and released on bail as per Ext. P1 and that Ext. P2 FIR does not contain any statement against the petitioner and therefore the action of the 3rd respondent is illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had also submitted Ext. P5 representation to the 2nd respondent stating that he was not involved in the said offence in any manner. Counter affidavit had been filed by the respondent 1 and 3 indicating that petitioner was working on empanelled basis and he was not a regular employee of the respondent Corporation. Such empanelled conductors are engaged for duty whenever vacancies arises in particular days consequent to the absence of permanent hands. According to them their services is on daily wage basis and therefore they are not entitled to get any benefits, such as enquiry before termination etc. It is further stated that action was taken to terminate the service of the petitioner since information was received regarding his involvement in the crime. So according to them the provisions of Kerala Civil Service (Classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1960 will not apply to such persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if he is only an empanelled conductor, before terminating his service, the respondents should have to call for an explanation and he should have been given an opportunity to ventilate his grievance in regard to the said termination. The counsel also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India and Others, . That was a case in which the employee was a casual labour in the Telecom Department and after having worked continuously for more than 10 years and acquired a temporary status he was terminated from service being involved in a criminal case, after conducting a preliminary enquiry. He was later acquitted in the criminal trial. In that event, the Supreme Court held that when a casual labour, had acquired a temporary status he becomes entitled to certain benefits one of which is that he becomes entitled to constitutional protection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution and in that view of the matter when services are terminated on account of allegation of assault the order of termination cannot be treated as a simple order of retrenchment whereas it is an order passed by way of punishment. Supreme Court in that case held that an order of dismissal based on preliminary enquiry and without holding a departmental enquiry cannot be sustained. The facts of the Nar Singh Pal (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. In this case, the petitioner is appointed on daily wages basis and he was only an empanelled conductor who is called for attending duties only when vacancies arises in particular days when there is absence of permanent hands. Admittedly, the provisions of Kerala Civil Service (Classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1960 does not apply to the facts of the case. In a reply filed, the petitioner contends he was sponsored by Employment Exchange. But the fact remains that the petitioner was a daily wages employee and there is no mandate on the part of the respondents to engage the petitioner. When it is found that he is involved in a criminal case it might be a case where he is not guilty of the allegation raised but still being a public utility service and especially a conductor who is in close contact with the passengers who travel in the said bus it may not be desirable for the respondent to continue to engage the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the challenge against Ext. P3 does not survive. However since the petitioner has filed a representation Ext.P5 to the 2nd respondent there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose Ext.P5 as early as possible and within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed as above.