Karnataka High Court
Naganna S/O Siddanna Sajjan vs The Divisional Controller on 22 November, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
WP No. 202954 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 202954 OF 2015 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
NAGANNA S/O SIDDANNA SAJJAN,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: EX DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR
NO. 4278, R/O KONDAGULI POST,
KANMESHWAR,
TQ. JEWARGI, DIST: KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
Digitally signed NEKRTC, VIJAYAPURA DIVISION,
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH VIJAYAPURA-586 102.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE LABOUR COURT, VIJAYAPURA
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMANT
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN NO.NEKRTC.BIJA
.DS.34.12.3972 DATED 23.05.2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
WP No. 202954 of 2015
A; B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE LABOUR COURT, VIJAYAPURA IN KID NO.56/2012, DATED
19.01.2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B; C) DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE CLAIMANT WITH
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. This Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set
aside the Judgment & Award passed by the Labour Court in KID
No.56/2012 dated 19th January 2015 and to direct the
respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service and
consequential benefits.
3. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent-
Corporation in the year 2008 as a driver-cum-conductor against
the permanent vacancy. On 9.3.2010, the claimant was the
Conductor of the Bus bearing No.1110 and the said bus was
checked by the checking officials of the respondent -
Corporation and it was found that the petitioner was in
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
possession of excess cash of Rs.321/-. At the time of checking,
the claimant had stated that he was going from Gulbarga to
Benglauru. However, the fact is that the vehicle bearing No.F-
1110 was scheduled between Tandur and Chincholi. Since the
claimant was in possession of excess cash than the personal
cash that could be carried, checking officials issued the offence
memo to him at the spot and reported the matter to the
respondent. The respondent initiated the enquiry by appointing
the Enquiry Officer on 18.5.2010. On enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in
possession of excess cash of Rs.321/-. The Enquiry Officer
submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 7.4.2011.
The respondent based on the report of the Enquiry Officer
removed the claimant from service. The petitioner challenged
the order passed by the respondent before the Labour Court.
The Labour Court held the enquiry to be fair, legal and proper
and dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner is before this Court in the present Petition.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is totally
illegal and the Labour Court erroneously dismissed the claim
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
petition and confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the
respondent. Learned counsel contends that the respondent
examined the Establishment Supervisor as RW.2 before the
Labour Court and he had stated that there were seven similar
cases against the claimant as per Ex.R25. But, in Ex.R25
there are no details of holding any enquiry regarding the
imposition of fines in respect of seven earlier alleged cases and
further no document produced to show that there was any
admission by the claimant with regard to his involvement in
such alleged cases relating to non-issue of tickets and non-
collection of fare amount from the passengers as mentioned in
Ex.R25. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that when the same is not satisfactorily explained
and proved and it is specifically denied by the petitioner, the
Labour Court ought not to have relied on the same by forming
an opinion against the petitioner.
4.1 It is further contended that in the claim petition it is
clearly stated that the bus was checked at Chincholi bus stand
and the records produced by the respondent also indicate that
the bus was checked at Chincholi bus stand and therefore, the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
finding of the Labour Court that the claimant has tried to
mislead the Court, is incorrect.
4.2 Learned counsel would further contend that the Labour
Court recorded a finding that the total cash with the claimant
was found to be Rs.4,998=50 and the money collected by sale
of tickets was Rs.4,597=50 and thus, there was an excess
amount of Rs.401/- and out of that Rs.80/- was the personal
money of the petitioner and therefore the actual excess amount
was Rs.321/-. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that there was no admission by the claimant nor any
proof produced that only Rs.80/- was the personal cash of the
claimant and that excess amount was therefore Rs.321/-.
The claimant has stated in his evidence before the Labour Court
that he had sought the permission of the Traffic Controller to
carry personal cash of Rs.325/-, but the Traffic Controller had
refused to give permission as the departmental Circular permits
the Traffic Controller to permit only Rs.100/- as personal cash.
Infact, all the passengers in the bus were found to be in
possession of requisite tickets. But, the Labour Court
disbelieved the say of the claimant with regard to the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
permission sought by him from the Traffic Controller to carry
excess cash of Rs.325/-.
4.3 It is also the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Labour Court has not confronted to the
petitioner with regard to his alleged involvement in seven other
cases of misconduct. Infact the petitioner was not involved in
any such cases and he has clearly stated in the deposition that
the entire history sheet is a false and brought up document.
Even the cross-examination of the claimant does not prove that
there was any misappropriation of the amount by him.
4.4 Learned counsel contends that the Labour Court
wrongly come to the conclusion holding the claimant guilty of
the charge and failed to invoke the provisions of Section 11-A
of the Industrial Disputes Act and grant relief by awarding
lesser punishment such as withholding of 2 or 3 increments.
On the contrary, the Labour Court illegally confirmed the order
of dismissal passed against the claimant. Therefore, learned
counsel sought to set aside the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Labour Court and reinstate the petitioner with
continuity of service and consequential benefits.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
5. Learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the
impugned order passed by the Labour Court.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the service
of the respondent - Corporation in the year 2008 as driver-
cum-conductor. When the bus bearing No.F-1110 driven by
him was checked by the checking officials of the respondent -
Corporation on 9.3.2010, he was in possession of excess cash
of Rs.321/-. The petitioner has not given any proper
explanation to justify about holding the excess amount.
Hence, the checking officials issued the offence memo to the
claimant at the spot and reported the matter to the respondent.
The respondent issued articles of charge, for which the
petitioner has not given reply. The Enquiry Officer recorded
the evidence of checking official, who has clearly stated about
the fact of checking of the bus and finding of excess amount of
Rs.321/-. This witness was not cross-examined by the
petitioner nor the petitioner adduced his evidence. Thereafter,
the Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding that the
misconduct levelled against the petitioner is proved and that
the petitioner was found in possession of excess cash of
Rs.321/-. The respondent being the Disciplinary Authority,
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
issued show cause notice to the claimant. Inspite of service of
notice, the claimant has not given any reply. Therefore, the
respondent on consideration of the enquiry report as well as
available documents, has passed the order of dismissal dated
23.5.2012. The petitioner challenged the said order before the
Labour Court. The Labour Court held the enquiry to be fair,
legal and proper and dismissed the claim petition.
7. As stated supra, the Enquiry Officer came to the
conclusion that the petitioner was found in possession of excess
cash of Rs.321/-. The evidence has been adduced by the
RW.2. Though it is stated that in seven other similar cases, the
petitioner was implicated, nothing has been produced before
the Court. The fact remains that once the enquiry conducted is
found to be fair and proper, the burden shifts on the petitioner
to disprove the same, but according to the Labour Court, the
petitioner has not disproved the same. It is seen from the
impugned order passed by the Labour Court that Section
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been complied,
which is not in dispute. On the basis of the entire oral and
documentary evidence adduced before the Labour Court, it is
found that the petitioner being the Conductor of the respondent
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
- Corporation was found with excess cash of Rs.321/- when
checked by the checking officials and he has not given any
acceptable reason for holding that amount. The
respondent/employer has therefore lost the confidence of the
petitioner and accordingly passed the order of dismissal.
8. Having perused the impugned order passed by the
Labour Court and having gone through the entire evidence
adduced, it is seen that no material is placed before the Court
to show that the petitioner has disproved the case initiated by
the respondent. It is also proved that the enquiry held by the
respondent is fair and legal. When such being the case, it
becomes incumbent upon the petitioner to disprove the case of
the respondent by cogent evidence, but the petitioner failed to
disprove the case of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner
utterly failed to prove that the order of dismissal is illegal,
arbitrary or perverse. Accordingly, the Labour Court confirmed
the dismissal order passed by the respondent and the claim
petition rightfully came to be dismissed. The reasons assigned
and the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court are just and
proper. I do not find any merit in the petition filed by the
petitioner to warrant interference at the hands of this Court.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8789
9. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following;
ORDER
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GSS
