K Muniraju vs The Divisional Controller
2022 Latest Caselaw 6267 Kant

                                     W.P.No.37501/2017
                         1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

       WRIT PETITION NO.37501/2017(L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

K.MUNIRAJU
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT ABLOODU VILLAGE AND POST
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105
                                         ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.M.V.THANUJA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101
                                       ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI.B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN I.D.NO.36/2016 DATED
19.06.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                         W.P.No.37501/2017
                            2




                        ORDER

Aggrieved by the award dated 19.06.2017 in

I.D.No.39/2016 passed by the Principal District Judge,

Chickballapura, the workman has preferred this petition.

2. During the year 2010 petitioner was working

in the respondent-organization as Driver-cum-

Conductor. The respondent conducted disciplinary

enquiry against the petitioner on the charge that on

28.02.2014 when he was discharging his duty as

conductor in bus bearing No.F-895 from Nandi to Nandi

hills route, he had not issued tickets to 15 passengers

and not collected fare of Rs.25 from each of them. It

was alleged that he did not issue tickets and collect the

charges from those passengers with dishonest intention

and permitted them to travel unauthorizedly.

3. In the reply issued to the articles of charge

the petitioner admitted non-issuance of tickets to those

15 passengers and non-collection of fare. He contended

that those 15 passengers boarded the bus in the station

which was just before the spot of interception by W.P.No.37501/2017

inspection squad and due to rush he could not issue

tickets to them before the bus reached the spot of

inspection. He further contended that the fine was not

collected by the passengers, but inspecting squad

collected the fine from him and issued the fine receipt.

4. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer indicted

the petitioner. Disciplinary Authority after serving him

the second show-cause notice by order dated

26.02.2016 accepted the enquiry report and imposed

the punishment of dismissing from the service. During

the enquiry the petitioner was kept under suspension.

5. The petitioner challenged the order of

dismissal before the Labour Court/ the Principal District

Judge, Chickballapur in I.D.No.36/2016. The same was

contested by the respondent. The Principal District

judge held that the domestic enquiry conducted against

the petitioner was fair and proper.

6. The trial Court recorded the evidence of the

petitioner and the respondent on merits also. Then on

hearing the parties by the impugned order, the trial W.P.No.37501/2017

Court confirmed the order of dismissal on the ground

that the charge against the petitioner is proved and the

act of the petitioner amounts to breach of trust.

7. Smt. M.V.Thanuja, learned Counsel for the

petitioner submits that it is not the case of the

respondent also that the petitioner had collected the

charges from passengers and retained for himself. She

further submits that the petitioner had no corrupt

motive, therefore the punishment imposed is

disproportionate.

8. Per contra, Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned

Counsel for Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned Counsel for the

respondent submits that the petitioner himself admitted

the non issuance of tickets and non collection of

charges. She submits that the petitioner had similar

past history, by such of his acts he has caused loss to

the employer. She submits that the respondent lost

trust and confidence of the employer, therefore the

order of dismissal is justifiable.

W.P.No.37501/2017

9. Relying on Regulation No.25 of Karnataka

State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct and

Discipline) Regulation 1971, learned counsel for the

respondent submits that as per said Regulation, if

misconduct is grave and the official has the past record

of misconduct, it has to impose major penalty specified

in Regulation No.18.

10. In passing the impugned order of dismissal,

respondent purportedly relied on Ex.R1(a) history sheet

of the petitioner. As per the said record, petitioner was

involved in 17 other similar cases of misconduct.

However, petitioner disputes Ex.R1(a) and his

involvement in previous cases. Therefore, respondent

was required to prove the past history of the petitioner.

11. R.W.2 who was examined to prove Ex.R1(a)

himself admits in the cross-examination that Ex.R1(a)

was not submitted before Enquiry Officer. It was

suggested to him that Ex.R1(a) is a concocted

document. He admits that whenever an adverse entry

is recorded about an employee in its records like W.P.No.37501/2017

Ex.R1(a), signature of the said employee is to be taken

on the said record. Apparently, Ex.R1(a) does not bear

such signature of the petitioner. Apart from that,

Regulation No.25 subjects itself to the condition that

such Regulation is without prejudice to provisions of any

law for the time being in force.

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indu

Bhushan Dwivedi V.s State of Jharkhand and Another1

submits that since the copies of Ex.1(a) were not served

on the petitioner, there is violation of principle natural

justice, therefore the action of dismissal is vitiated.

13. In para No.21 to 23 of the said judgment it

was held that whenever an authority is entrusted with

the task of deciding lis between the parties which visits

the Civil consequences for any individual concerned,

person has to be disclosed about the evidence used

against him giving an opportunity to meet that. It was

(2010)11 SCC 278 W.P.No.37501/2017

held that otherwise final decision gets vitiated on the

ground of the violation of rules of audi alteram partem.

14. In the light of the aforesaid judgment and

facts and circumstances, the contention that Regulation

No.25 requires the respondent to impose the major

penalty under Regulation No.18 without putting the

workman on notice about his alleged past conduct does

not sustain.

15. However, since the petitioner himself

admitted non issue of the tickets and non collection of

the fare and failed to justify such misconduct, the same

warrants some punishment. The evidence of RW.2

shows that the respondent had imposed the minor

penalty in the case of 100 to 115 workmen who had

committed similar misconduct. Therefore, the case on

hand warrants minor penalty.

16. The petitioner has not worked since

26.02.2016 i.e., the date of his dismissal. Therefore he

will not be entitled to back wages and continuity of

service. Therefore the petition is partly allowed.

W.P.No.37501/2017

The impugned award of the penalty is modified as

follows:

(i). The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner

within one month from the date of copy of this order

subject to his driving license being in order and on he

furnishing the medical fitness certificate.

(ii). The petitioner is not entitled to back wages

and continuity of service, consequential benefits and

he is not liable to promotion for the period of two year

from the date of his reinstatement.

Sd/-

JUDGE PKN/pgg