Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Mahantesh Chanabasappa on 9 February, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
WP No. 81192 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 81192 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.W.K.R.T.C., HUBLI DIVISION,
HUBLI.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
N.W.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.
BOTH ARE REPT BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHANTESH CHANABASAPPA GUDADUR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O AT GANGAPUR,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
POST: GUDADUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
DHARWAD
Date: 2023.02.10
11:41:48 +0530
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD DTD.27.11.2012 PASSED BY THE
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI IN ID.NO.478/2009 COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C.
-2-
WP No. 81192 of 2013
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARYHEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
award dated 27.11.2012, passed in ID No.478/2009
(Annexure-C), on the file of the Industrial Tribunal,
Hubballi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for
short) allowing the Reference in part.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ
petition are that, the petitioner - Corporation has issued
article of charges against the respondent - workman on
07.09.2004 and after due enquiry, petitioner Corporation
dismissed the respondent from service on 09.01.2006.
Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before the
Appellate Authority under the KSRTC Servants (Conduct &
Discipline) Regulation, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'C
& D Regulations', for short). The Appellate Authority, after
considering the reply made by the respondent, modified
the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority
WP No. 81192 of 2013
in to minor penalty of withholding three increments
permanently without back wages, with continuity of
service. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent /
claimant filed petition before the Tribunal, in ID
No.478/2009 and the Tribunal, after considering the
material on record, allowed the Reference and interfered
with the minor penalty imposed by the Appellate
Authority. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
Corporation has presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Smt. Veena Hegde, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner - Corporation and
Sri.Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent - workman.
4. Smt. Veena Hegde, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner-Corporation contented that, the
jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the
departmental enquiry is limited and the Tribunal cannot
reassess the evidence on record and therefore, she
contended that, in terms of the law declared by the
WP No. 81192 of 2013
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Standard Chartered
Bank Vs. R. C. Srivastava reported in 2021 SCC online
SC 830, the reassessment of the evidence by the Tribunal
is contrary to paragraph 18 of the said judgment and
accordingly sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri.Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent - workman
contended that, the Tribunal, after considering the
material on record, particularly the medical record
produced by the respondent - workman, has interfered
with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority. He further contended that, the entire
charge leveled against the respondent - workman was on
the flimsy ground of not attending the work for a period of
three months, despite the respondent - workman has
marked the medical records before the Enquiry Officer and
the same was considered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, he
sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
WP No. 81192 of 2013
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, it is not in dispute that the charge sheet was
issued against the respondent - workman on 07.09.2004.
A fair opportunity was extended to the workman -
respondent during the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer
reported that the charges leveled against the workman -
respondent are proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after
considering the material on record, has ordered for his
removal from the service. Being not satisfied with the
same, the workman-respondent approached the Appellate
Authority under C & D Regulation, and the Appellate
Authority, after considering the material on record, by its
order dated 16.06.2006 (Annexure-A), modified the order
of the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment was
converted into withholding three increments.
7. A perusal of the finding recorded by the
Tribunal would indicate that, the Tribunal has reassessed
the evidence on record before the Enquiry Officer and has
exceeded its jurisdiction and interfered with the finding of
WP No. 81192 of 2013
the Appellate Authority, which is impermissible in law. In
this regard, I find force in the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation.
8. Paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Standard Chartered Bank's case (supra)
reads as under:
"18. In the instant case, after we have gone through
the record, we find that the Tribunal has converted
itself into a Court of Appeal as an appellate authority
and has exceeded its jurisdiction while appreciating
the finding recorded in the course of domestic
enquiry and tested on the broad principles of charge
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is a
test in the criminal justice system and has
completely forgotten the fact that the domestic
enquiry is to be tested on the principles of
preponderance of probabilities and if a piece of
evidence is on record which could support the charge
which has been levelled against the delinquent
unless it is per se unsustainable or perverse,
ordinarily is not to be interfered by the Tribunal,
more so when the domestic enquiry has been held to
be fair and proper and, in our view, the Tribunal has
completely overlooked and exceeded its jurisdiction
while interfering with the finding recorded during the
course of enquiry in furtherance of which, the
respondent was dismissed from service and the High
Court has also committed a manifest error while
passing the judgment impugned."
WP No. 81192 of 2013
9. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex
Court referred to above, I am of the view that, the award
dated 27.11.2012, passed in ID No.478/2009 on the file of
the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, is required to be
interfered with, as the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by
re-appreciating the finding recorded by the Enquiry
Officer. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. Award dated 27.11.2012 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi, in ID
No.478/2009 (Annexure-C) is set aside.
iii. Order dated 16.06.2006 passed by the
Appellate Authority (Annexure-A) is
confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
