Karnataka High Court
The Board Of Directors vs H. Ramanagowdar on 28 June, 2023
Bench: S G Bysgpj, Vapj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6391-DB
WA No. 100296 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100296 OF 2021 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
H. RAMANAGOWDAR,
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER,
R
Location:
R/O: NWKRTC HAVERI DIVISION,
DHARWAD
Date:
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
2023.07.03
15:58:08 -0700
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2021 IN WP NO.105863/2016
(S-PRO) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6391-DB
WA No. 100296 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') under Section 4 of
the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 questioning the
correctness and legality of the order dated 25.08.2021 in
W.P.No.105863/2016 by which the learned Single Judge
quashed the order of punishment and directed to consider
the representation of the petitioner/respondent herein and
to promote him to the post of Deputy Chief Traffic
Manager with effect from 08.01.2016 with all
consequential benefits in accordance with law.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Prashant S.
Hosamani for appellants and learned counsel Sri.A.S.Patil
for respondent. Perused the writ appeal papers.
3. The parties to the Writ Appeal would be
referred to as per their ranks before the learned Single
Judge in the Writ Petition. The appellants were
respondents and respondent herein was petitioner before
the Writ Court.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6391-DB
WA No. 100296 of 2021
4. The petitioner was before this Court in
W.P.No.105863/2016 questioning the order of punishment
dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure-M) and order dated
08.01.2016 passed by the second respondent vide
Annexure-H and also praying for a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the
post of Deputy Chief Traffic Manager with effect from
08.01.2016 by considering his representation dated
16.01.2016.
5. The petitioner contended that the Articles of
Charge dated 15.02.2013 was issued against the
petitioner as well as 12 other persons. The Charge against
the petitioner and others was not maintaining the Master
Control Register and other charge of non-recovery of
license fee from shops at Central Bus Station at Mysore.
Pursuant to the report of the Enquiry Officer, two separate
orders were passed on 07.05.2013 and 08.01.2016. Both
one S.Rajesh and the petitioner filed appeal before the
Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority in the case
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6391-DB
WA No. 100296 of 2021
of S.Rajesh, accepting the payment made towards non-
recovery of license fee, exonerated him in the appeal,
while confirmed the punishment in respect of the
petitioner. Challenging the same, petitioner was before
this Court.
6. Learned Single Judge after considering the Writ
Petition has accepted the contention of the petitioner and
at paragraph 6, after assigning detailed reasons, allowed
the Writ Petition. Relevant reasoning of the learned Single
Judge is extracted below for ready reference:
"The only ground on which the appeal of the
petitioner has been rejected by the first respondent
is that the petitioner had paid the penalty of
Rs.926/-. The representation made by the petitioner
at Annexure-K would go to show that immediately
after the order of punishment was passed on
08.01.2016; with a hope that his case would be
considered for promotion, he paid the penalty on
08.01.2016 and on the very same day, he filed a
representation for consideration of his case for
promotion. Merely for the reason that the petitioner
had paid penalty of Rs.926/-, the respondents were
not justified in not considering the petitioner's case
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6391-DB
WA No. 100296 of 2021
for promotion and also in rejecting his appeal filed
as against the punishment dated 08.01.2016, while
Sri. S.Rajesh, who was similarly situated, was
exonerated by the first respondent and
subsequently also given promotion. Further, as
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in both the enquiry reports, except the
charge of not maintaining the Master Control
Register, the other three charges were not proved.
Therefore, the Disciplinary authority was not
justified in punishing the petitioner on the ground
that the petitioner had failed to recover a sum of
Rs.1,629/- from the occupier of shop No.15 in
Central Bus Station, Mysore. In respect of similarly
situated delinquent officer Sri. S.Rajesh as against
whom the charge for having caused loss of
Rs.67,480/- was leveled, the first respondent has
set aside the order of punishment and has
exonerated him. Therefore, there is absolutely, no
justification in rejecting the petitioner's appeal by
the first respondent and also consequently denying
him promotion."
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and on going through the learned Single Judge's order as
well as on perusal of the appeal papers. We fully concern
with finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. We
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6391-DB
WA No. 100296 of 2021
decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Moreover, the appellants have failed to point
out any error in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
8. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we are
of the view that the Corporation could not have treated
the appellant and one S.Rajesh, differently and both of
them ought to have been treated on the same footing. No
ground to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order
and Accordingly, Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, all the pending
I.As would not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NC
