The Managing Director vs Sri R Nagaraja
2023 Latest Caselaw 1277 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                        WA No. 935 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
                                            PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                                  AND
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
                            WRIT APPEAL NO.935 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
                        KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
                        K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
                        BANGALORE 560 027.

                   2.   THE DIRECTOR
Digitally signed        (ESTABLISHMENT AND ENVIRONMENT)
by RUPA V               AND REVIEW AUTHORITY
Location: High          KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
Court of
Karnataka               K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
                        BANGALORE 560 027.

                   3.   THE CHIEF PLANNING
                        AND STATISTICAL OFFICER
                        AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
                        KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES
                        K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
                        BANGALORE 560 027.

                   4.   DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
                        KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION
                        DAVANAGERE-577001.

                        APPELLANTS HEREIN
                        REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER
                        K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
                        BENGALURU-560027.

                                                             ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L. ADV.,)
                              -2-
                                           WA No. 935 of 2021




AND:

1.   SRI. R. NAGARAJA
     S/O RAJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
     R/A MALLADI HALLI
     HOLALKERE TALUK
     CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526.

                                                 ...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.11410/2017 DATED
09.04.2021.

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

                        JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed against an

order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the

respondent has been allowed and the order dated

29.02.2012 passed by the Divisional Controller,

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') imposing

WA No. 935 of 2021

the penalty of withholding of annual increment without

cumulative effect, has been quashed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the respondent was appointed as an

Assistant Traffic Inspector of the Corporation on

23.10.2007. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated

against the respondent on the ground that on account

of his negligence, some financial loss has been caused

to the Corporation. On receipt of charge memo,

respondent submitted his explanation. The Disciplinary

Authority, however, without conducting enquiry,

imposed the penalty of withholding of annual increment

for a period of six months without cumulative effect.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary

Authority, the respondent challenged the same in an

appeal and a revision which were dismissed by orders

dated 19.06.2013 and 12.02.2016, respectively. The

respondent thereupon challenged the aforesaid orders

WA No. 935 of 2021

before the learned Single Judge, who by an order dated

09.04.2021 has quashed the order passed in the appeal

and has allowed the writ petition preferred by the

respondent. In the aforesaid factual background, this

appeal arises for our consideration.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in allowing

the petition filed by the respondent.

4. We have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused

the record. Admittedly, prior to imposing penalty on the

respondent, no enquiry was held. The learned Single

Judge, while referring to Regulation 22(1)(b) of the

KSRTC Servants (C & D) Regulation, 1971 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Regulations') has held that even

before imposing minor penalty, enquiry ought to have

been held. In the instant case, penalty has been

WA No. 935 of 2021

imposed without conducting an enquiry dehors the

provisions prescribed in the Regulations. The learned

Single Judge has therefore rightly allowed the writ

petition.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned

Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory

applications are also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV