JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. Certain employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC for short) have, through these writ petitions, impugn the action taken by the Managing Director, ordering recovery of amounts from them, on the allegation that they went on a “flash strike” on 26.06.2022. 2. The petitioners vehemently contend that they were forced to refuse to discharge their duties on the day in question, because the schedules of the trips were altered by the Management without notice to them; and since it became impossible to honour them, particularly because they were left without sufficient facilities for even primary requirements and since the running time fixed - through such altered schedule - was insufficient. 3. Though I do not propose to speak on the assertions of the petitioners in detail at this stage, on account of the directions that I propose herein, it is conceded by both sides that KSRTC is now going through extreme financial crisis. “flash strikes” and similar other collective actions are not merely deleterious to its future, but will serve no purpose other than to prejudice the large number of ordinary persons who rely solely upon the KSRTC for their travelling needs. 4. Several orders have already been issued by this Court in certain other matters, with the hortative hope of making KSRTC self sufficient and financially efficacious, but actions like the one projected in this case - whatever be its truth or otherwise - would sound the death knell to every such attempt and endeavour because, as matters presently are, the KSRTC cannot suffer even a day’s loss of income. 5. As things now stand, the KSRTC is surviving on the assistance given to it by the Government on a monthly basis and every effort is necessary to bring it out of this imbroglio, by increasing the daily collection, for which certain targets have already been fixed. 6. Actions like “flash strikes” and “hartals” surely would impede such endeavour and I am of the view, therefore, that these issues cannot be taken lightly at all. 7. That apart, if isolated actions are tolerated or condoned, it would become fodder for others to follow suit, particularly if they are given to understand that they would not be put to any prejudice or consequences on account of their conduct. 8. 7. That apart, if isolated actions are tolerated or condoned, it would become fodder for others to follow suit, particularly if they are given to understand that they would not be put to any prejudice or consequences on account of their conduct. 8. In the modern democratic scenario, protests have several methods and it is now high-time for the employees to decide whether their behaviour in the manner as projected in these writ petitions would behoove the modern times - especially when they unequivocally concede that they are fully aware of the deep financial trouble faced by the KSRTC. 9. That being said, on the merits of the matter, Sri. T.P. Pradeep - learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that his clients seek an enquiry into the allegations, though admitting that they had not operated the schedules on the day in question, but arguing that this can be explained by them, if given a proper chance. 10. In fact, on hearing Sri. T.P. Pradeep as afore on 28th September, 2022 - when this matter was earlier listed - I had issued the following interim order: “Sri. T.P. Pradeep - learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the allegations against his clients are not true and that they want an enquiry. He added that, subject to such an enquiry, his clients are even willing to be subjected to major penalty and therefore, that they do not want indulgence of the KSRTC in confining it to a minor penalty, as has been now proposed. 2. Sri. Deepu Thankan - learned counsel for the KSRTC, submitted that he will obtain instructions from his client as to the future cause of action. Resultantly, I adjourn these matters to be called on 06.10.2022; until which time, the recovery as per the impugned orders will stand deferred.” 11. Today, Sri. Deepu Thankan - learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, submitted that his client is willing to initiate a complete enquiry into the incident and that necessary action thereon will be completed, including through imposition of major penalty - if it is so found warranted; and thus prayed that this Court grant his client liberty for such purpose. 12. As I have already said above, it is too early for this Court to declare the innocence or guilt of the petitioners. 12. As I have already said above, it is too early for this Court to declare the innocence or guilt of the petitioners. This certainly is one which will have to be established through a proper enquiry, which the KSRTC now says they are willing to do. Of course, when the petitioners insist that such an enquiry be taken forward, obviously they cannot stand in the way of the KSRTC considering major penalties, if it is so found warranted. In fact, Sri. T.P. Pradeep - learned counsel for the petitioners welcomes this. 13. At this time, Sri. T.P. Pradeep, intervened to add that, as a matter of fact, his clients have already been punished by the KSRTC, since two days’ salary has been recovered from them. This is vehemently controverted by Sri. Deepu Thankan saying that even if there had been any such recovery, it has no reflection to the incident involved in these cases. 14. Resultantly, I allow these writ petitions and direct the competent Authority of the KSRTC to initiate necessary enquiry as per the applicable Service Regulations against the petitioners herein, or any other person who may have been involved in the incident in question and to complete the same, after affording them necessary opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible. 15. Needless to say, the afore action will be without any constraints, but subject to the parameters of the applicable Rules and Regulations; and needless to say, the KSRTC will be, if found so warranted, at liberty to impose apposite punishment against the petitioners - be that minor or major. 16. Until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioners, recovery as ordered in the impugned proceedings of the Managing Director of the KSRTC in these cases will stand deferred.