Karnataka High Court

Ganapati S/O. Venkataramana ... vs The Management Of on 11 July, 2023

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                    -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC-D:7008
                                                           WP No. 105448 of 2014




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                              BEFORE

                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 105448 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)

                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. GANAPATI S/O. VENKATARAMANA SHETTY,
                      AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
                      R/O. AT POST: KANTRI, POST: ANKOLA,
                      DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
                                                                  ... PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. VINAYAKUMAR BHAT, ADV. FOR
                      SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADV.)

                      AND:

                      THE MANAGEMENT OF
                      NWKRTC, U K DIVISION,
                      R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
RAKESH S              U K DIVISION, SIRSI.
HARIHAR                                                          ... RESPONDENT
                      (BY SMT. P.R. BENTUR, ADV.)
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR                    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
Date: 2023.07.13
11:16:16 +0530        AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
                      ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
                      WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER, QUASHING THE AWARDS
                      PASSED BY THE ANNEXURE-D IN ID NO. 337/2009 DATED
                      27.05.2012 AND ANNEXURE-H ID NO.338/2009 DATED
                      17.06.2013 BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL
                      TRIBUNAL HUBLI TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC.

                           THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
                      HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
                      FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC-D:7008
                                       WP No. 105448 of 2014




                           ORDER

The petitioner, who is working as a Conductor with

the respondent - Corporation has preferred the instant writ

petition seeking for the following reliefs:

"(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order, quashing the Awards passed by the ANNEXURE D in ID No: 337/2009 dated 27.05.2012 and ANNEXURE HID No 338/2009 dated 17.06.2013 by the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Hubli to meet the ends of justice

(B) Consequent to the quashing of the Award in in ID No 337/2009 dated 27.05.2012 from Industrial Tribunal Hubli in ID No 338/2009 dated: 17.06 2013 the petitioner is aggrieved, Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order of directing the Respondent to release the increments with all the monetary benefits to the petitioner to meet the ends of justice

(C) Also award the cost of the writ proceedings and pass any other order or orders deemed fit under the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7008 WP No. 105448 of 2014

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. On the allegation of pilferage and also

unauthorized absence, two separate punishment orders

were issued against the petitioner by the respondent on

19.08.1994 and 23.09.1994 respectively. Being aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner had approached the State

Government, who inturn had raised a dispute before the

Industrial Tribunal as provided under Section 10(1)(d) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D. Nos.338/2009

and 337/2009 respectively. The Industrial Tribunal vide

award Annexure - H dated 17.06.2013 and vide Annexure

- D dated 27.05.2012 had rejected the said reference and

had confirmed the order of punishment passed against the

petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is

before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

serious charges of pilferage and unauthorized absence was

made against the petitioner and without holding any

enquiry, an order of punishment was passed. He submits

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7008 WP No. 105448 of 2014

that the Industrial Tribunal has failed to appreciate this

aspect of the matter and has confirmed the order of

punishment. He has placed reliance on the judgment of

the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100217/2018

disposed of on 27.02.2019 and also the order passed by

this Court in W.P. No.103713/2018 disposed of on

15.09.2021 in support of his arguments.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent submits that since the disciplinary authority

has only imposed a minor punishment, the same was

permissible under the regulation without holding any

enquiry and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal was justified

in passing the impugned awards. She accordingly prays to

dismiss the writ petition.

6. The material on record would go to show that

the punishment orders which were assailed before the

Industrial Tribunal were passed by the respondent against

the petitioner on serious allegation of pilferage and

unauthorized absence and therefore, it was incumbent

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7008 WP No. 105448 of 2014

upon the respondent to hold a domestic enquiry against

the petitioner before passing any order of punishment

against him. In almost identical circumstances in W.A.

No.100217/2018, wherein the respondent - Corporation

was the appellant at para 3 of the judgment, the Division

Bench of this Court had observed as follows:

"3. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge, as the imposition of penalty against the respondent herein is without compliance of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no inquiry or hearing, whatsoever, was provided to the respondent before imposition of the penalty. Further, we find that there is no order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dispensing with the holding of inquiry before imposition of penalty by giving reasons thereof. There is no merit in the writ petition."

7. In W.P. No.103713/2018 disposed of on

15.09.2021, this Court at para 7, 8 and 9 had observed as

follows:

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7008 WP No. 105448 of 2014

"7. Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1971 provides that the Disciplinary Authority is required to take a decision as to whether an enquiry is required in a particular case or not and a reasoned order is required to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority in case the Disciplinary Authority comes to a decision that holding of enquiry is not required in a particular case. In the case on hand, though the Disciplinary Authority has made a note in its order that holding of enquiry is not necessary, the same would not suffice the requirement of Regulation 22(1)(b) of Regulations of 1971 as no reasons are assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for coming to a conclusion that enquiry is not necessary in the present case.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K.Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2001)9 SCC 180 has held that even in the case of imposing a minor penalty the principles of natural justice must be followed and in cases where the charges are denied by the employee an enquiry should be conducted. In the said case, the Hon'ble

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7008 WP No. 105448 of 2014

Supreme Court at para 3 has observed as follows:

"3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charge against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with."

9. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.2762/2006 and W.P. No.104098/2015, after referring to Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1971 has held that the Disciplinary Authority is required to pass a reasoned order in the event it decides to dispense with holding of enquiry as against the delinquent employee. Under the circumstances, the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which does not satisfy the requirement of law, cannot be sustained."

NC: 2023:KHC-D:7008 WP No. 105448 of 2014

8. Under the circumstances, the punishment

orders passed by the respondent - Corporation without

holding any enquiry against the petitioner were not

sustainable in law. The Industrial Tribunal has failed to

appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in

passing the impugned awards. Under the circumstances,

the following: