Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Ganesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 12907 Kant

                              1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                       PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                         AND

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

            W.A. No.1041 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)
                          IN
            W.P. No.4277 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
                                   ... APPELLANT
(BY MRS. RENUKA H.R. ADV.,)

AND:

GANESH
S/O ACCHUU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
CONDUCTOR, BADGE NO.4275
KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION
HASSAN.

PRESENT ADDRESS
DOOR NO.133
GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL
CHANNAPATNA EXTENSION
HASSAN-573201.
                                     ... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. H.C. SUNDARESH, ADV.,)
                               2



     THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.4277/2016 (L-KSRTC) DATED
27/01/2021.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed against an order

dated 27.01.2021 passed by the learned Single, Judge by

which writ petition preferred by the respondent has been

partly allowed and the penalty of reduction of annual

increments by four stages with cumulative effect is

modified to reduction of two annual increments with

cumulative effect.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the appellant was employed as a conductor

with Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short). On

17.05.2011, the respondent was in the bus plying between

Hassan and Guruvayoor. The bus was intercepted at

Holenarasipura and it was found that the respondent had

not issued on ticket to passenger who was traveling from

Hassan to Guruvayoor and had not collected fair of

Rs.210/-. Thereupon, a charge sheet dated 02.06.2011

was issued to the appellant.

3. The respondent filed reply to the charge sheet

and denied the charge alleged against him. The

Corporation appointed an enquiry officer who submitted a

report in which charges leveled against the respondent

were found to be proved. The disciplinary authority by an

order dated 04.01.2012, imposed a penalty of stoppage of

four annual increments permanently.

4. The respondent approached the labour court

for conciliation. The Conciliation Officer submitted the

failure report. The Government thereupon referred the

dispute for adjudication to the industrial tribunal. The

tribunal passed an award dated 19.04.2014 held that

domestic enquiry held against the respondent is fair and

proper and upheld the order of the disciplinary authority.

The respondent challenged the aforesaid order in a writ

petition. The learned Single Judge inter alia held that the

respondent had collected a sum of Rs.210/- instead of

Rs.231/-. However, it was held that the punishment of

reduction of annual increments by four incremental stages

with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the

misconduct committed by the respondent and substituted

the punishment of withholding of two annual increments

with cumulative effect. In the aforesaid factual

background, the Corporation has filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the

quantum of punishment. On the other hand, learned

counsel for the respondent has supported the order

passed by learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record. From perusal of

the order passed by the industrial tribunal, it is evident

that it has accepted the version of inspecting officials that

the respondent ought to have collected a sum of Rs.231/-

instead of Rs.210/- from the passenger. Learned Single

Judge on the basis of material available on record has

held that misconduct committed by the respondent is not

established in its entirety. The learned Single Judge

therefore, has found that the punishment of stoppage of

four increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate

and has substituted the same by penalty of stoppage of

two increments with cumulative effect. In the facts and

circumstances of the case and in view of the material

available on record, we are not inclined to interfere with

the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS