Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shehnaz W/O Shiraz Gunaki vs The Management Of Nwkrtc on 8 September, 2022
Bench: M.I.Arun
-1-
W.P. No.103220 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
W.P. NO. 103220 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHEHNAZ W/O. SHIRAZ GUNAKI,
AGE 51 YEARS, OCC NIL,
R/O SECTOR NO.7, H.NO.1414,
ANJANEYA NAGAR, VANTAMURI COLONY,
BELAGAVI-590002.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
GUKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARDS
DATED 29.06.2019 AND 28.12.2020 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI IN KID NO.09/2016 VIDE
ANNEXURE G AND H AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
-2-
W.P. No.103220 of 2021
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2019, passed by
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubbali in KID
No.9/2016, vide Annexure-G to the writ petition, wherein
the enquiry held against the petitioner is considered to be
fair and proper and another order dated 28.12.2020, passed
by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi in KID
No.9/2016, vide Annexure-H to the writ petition, wherein
the claim of the petitioner has been dimissed, the instant
writ petition is filed.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 as
Junior Assistant and she was working with the respondent -
Management at Belagavi Division. She was entrusted to
lookafter the Tapal Section by entering inward, outward and
also sending notices to the concerned parties through UCP
(under certificate of posting), RPAD (registered post
acknowledgment due) and also through ordinary posts as
and when required. In the course of her work, the allegation
is that she has caused monetary loss to the respondent -
W.P. No.103220 of 2021
Corporation by raising bogus receipts, creating bogus
entries, entering letters repeatedly and thereby has
misappropriated the amounts to a tune of Rs.9,02,856/-.
The Enquiry Officer found the allegations against the
petitioner to be correct and based on his findings, the
petitioner has been terminated from the service. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by
way of KID No.9/2016 wherein the Labour Court has held
that the enquiry against her to be fair and proper and has
also dismissed her claim. Aggrieved by the same, the
instant writ petition is filed.
3. Advocate for the petitioner in the course of arguments
does not dispute that the enquiry conducted against the
petitioner was fair and proper and opportunity was provided
to her. However, he contends that upon the evidence
adduced, it cannot be held that she forged the signature of
her Superior Officers and that the Enquiry Officer himself
has come to the conclusion that without the Forensic report,
forging of the signature by the petitioner cannot be
W.P. No.103220 of 2021
accepted. On the said ground, it is prayed that the
impugned orders be set aside.
4. Per contra, the advocate for the respondent justifies
the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
5. The petitioner was working in the Tapal Section.
During that time, there was abnormal increase in the
expenses incurred towards stamp and other incidental
charges required for sending the posts through UCP, RPAD
and ordinary post. As the same was detected, an enquiry
was initiated and it has been found that, the kind of
expenses billed to the respondent - Corporation has not
been in fact incurred. The manipulation in the accounts in
respect of the expenses incurred towards the same has
been proved. In the process, the bills raised for purchase of
stamps and counter signature by the Superiors of the
petitioner has been examined. The Enquiry Officer and the
Labour Court by appreciating the evidence have come to
the conclusion that her Superiors have not admitted the
W.P. No.103220 of 2021
signatures on all the receipts. What the Enquiry Officer has
observed is that the Forensic report is required to establish
whether the petitioner has forged the receipts or not.
6. It is not in dispute that the said receipts were in the
custody of the petitioner; she raised the said bills and it is
her contention that the same has been counter signed by
her Superiors and that she drew money as per the same.
On evidence, it has been established that the superiors of
the petitioner have not singed all the documents, but
manipulation and withdrawal of the excess money by the
petitioner has been proved. Under the circumstances, the
Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court have come to the
conclusion that it is not required to establish whether the
petitioner in fact forged the signatures on those documents
or not. I do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at
by the] Enquiry Officer or the Labour Court. Further, the
Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the domestic
enquiry conducted by respondent - Management against
the petitioner is fair and proper and the respondent -
W.P. No.103220 of 2021
Management is justified in dismissing the claimant from
service. I do not find any perversity in the manner in which
the enquiry has been conducted nor the punishment
accorded.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and others Vs. M.Duraisamy, Civil Appeal
No.2665/2022 arising from SLP (C) No.6062/2022, in
paragraph No.7, has held as under:
"7. While answering the aforesaid
question/issue, the decision of this Court in the case
of Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (supra), on the
judicial review and the limited jurisdiction of the High
Court on the proportionality of the order of
departmental authority is required to be referred to.
In the said decision, after referring to a catena
of judgments of this Court, it is observed and held by
this Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court on
the proportionality of the order of departmental
authority is limited. It is observed that it cannot set
aside a well-reasoned order only on grounds of
sympathy and sentiments. It is further observed and
held that once it is found that all the procedural
requirements had been complied with, courts would
not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of
W.P. No.103220 of 2021
punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. It
is further observed that the superior courts, only in
some cases may invoke the doctrine of
proportionality, however if the decision of an
employer is found to be within the legal parameters,
the doctrine would ordinarily not be invoked when the
misconduct stands proved.
7.1 In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), the
High Court interfered with the order of punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and substituted
the punishment of dismissal from service to one of
compulsory retirement on the reasoning that the
employee had put in 30 years of service and that he
had a brilliant academic record and that he had
earned promotion after the disciplinary proceedings
were initiated. Setting aside the judgment and order
passed by the High Court, this Court observed that
the reasoning is wholly unsupportable. Such reasons
are not relevant or germane to modify the
punishment. What is required to be considered is the
gravity of the misconduct. In the said case, the
employee was found to be in possession of assets
disproportionate to the known sources of his income.
Therefore, this Court observed and held that the
interference with the imposition of punishment was
wholly unwarranted."
W.P. No.103220 of 2021
8. Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason to
interfere in the impugned orders and the writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
