Sri. M. Manjunatha vs Karnataka State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 892 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                          WA No.773 of 2021




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
                                           PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                                 AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                            WRIT APPEAL NO.773 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SRI. M. MANJUNATHA
                        S/O K. MUNIREDDY
                        AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                        R/AT NO. N. DOMMASANDRA
                        MUTHUSANDRA POST, VIA VARTHUR
                        BENGALURU-560 087.

                                                               ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed   (BY SRI. SURESH S, ADV., FOR
by RUPA V
                       SRI. ASWATHAPPA D, ADV.,)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka          AND:

                   1.   KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
                        TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                        CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H. ROAD
                        SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027
                        BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS
                        CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

                                                            ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SMT. RENUKA H R, ADV.,)

                       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 40651/2017 (L-KSRTC) DATED
                             -2-
                                           WA No.773 of 2021




15.07.2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT IN REFERENCE NO.5/2015
VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

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

                       JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against

order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the

respondent has been allowed and the award dated

06.01.2017 directing reinstatement of the appellant has

been set aside.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the appellant joined the services of

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') on the post

of driver-cum-conductor in the year 2003. On

11.11.2010, the Depot Manager reported unauthorized

absence of the appellant w.e.f. 30.10.2010. Thereafter,

a notice dated 21.03.2011 was issued to the appellant

WA No.773 of 2021

to report for duty and articles of charge was issued to

the appellant.

3. The appellant did not submit any reply to the

aforesaid charge sheet. The appellant did not

participate in the proceeding of the enquiry. The

Enquiry Officer submitted a report in which charge of

unauthorized absence against the appellant was found

to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter

issued a show cause notice to the appellant along with

the enquiry report. The appellant did not even supply

reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. The

Disciplinary Authority thereafter, by an order dated

31.01.2012, imposed the penalty of dismissal from

service. The appellant thereupon raised an industrial

dispute which was referred for adjudication before the

Labour Court. The Labour Court, by an order dated

06.01.2017, set aside the order of dismissal directing

the Corporation to reinstate the appellant with

WA No.773 of 2021

continuity of service with all consequential benefits

except backwages. The Corporation challenged the

aforesaid order in a writ petition which has been allowed

by the learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant had remained unauthorizedly absent

for a period of 52 days only and therefore, the quantum

of punishment imposed on the appellant is excessive.

5. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record. From perusal

of the record, it is evident that the appellant has

remained unauthorizedly absent from 31.10.2010 till

31.01.2012 i.e. for a period of one year and three

months. The appellant neither submitted any reply to

the charge memo nor has participated in the

disciplinary proceeding. The appellant even did not file

WA No.773 of 2021

a reply to the notice issued to him by the Disciplinary

Authority with regard to proposed punishment. The

appellant has remained unauthorizedly absent for a

long period of one year and three months. The conduct

is a grave misconduct for which a suitable penalty on

the appellant has been imposed. The aforesaid penalty

cannot be said to be disproportionate.

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 petition fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV