Karnataka High Court
Smt Vidya V Raikar vs The Karnataka State Road And Transport ... on 6 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5754
WP No. 21389 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.21389 OF 2022 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VIDYA V. RAIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O. A.B. HOSAPOOJARI,
FORMER DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER
(UNDER ORDER OF DISMISSAL)
R/AT NO.3649, 4TH CROSS, B-BLOCK,
GAYATRINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 021. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KARTHIK N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
Digitally signed BANGALORE - 560 027
by SHYAMALA REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION
B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
3. THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5754
WP No. 21389 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS;
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN ORDER
NO.KA.RA.SA.KE.KA.SHISTU.D-625/327:2022-23 DATED 09.07.2022,
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 WHICH IS HEREWITH MARKED AND
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND E1 BEARING
NO.KA.RA.SA.KE.KA.SHISTU.D-625/689:2015-16 DATED 11/08/2015
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner assails the order passed by respondent
No.1 dismissing the petitioner from the post of Divisional
Mechanical Engineer of the respondent-Corporation.
2. Petitioner while working as a Senior Depot
Manager, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the
petitioner and some other employees, who were involved
in demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, charge
memo was issued. The petitioner filed writ petition
assailing the proceedings initiated by the respondent-
Corporation mainly on the ground for want of jurisdiction
and the authority in law to initiate a trap, writ petition was
dismissed with liberty to raise all the contentions including
NC: 2024:KHC:5754
of laying of trap before the Disciplinary Authority, which
order came to be confirmed in writ appeal.
3. The charge sheet was issued stating that the
petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- from driver-cum-
conductor for sanctioning leave, and there was an alleged
trap and she was caught by the authorities, petitioner was
placed under suspension, thereafter, disciplinary
proceedings were concluded by imposing penalty of
dismissal from service. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and the
Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary
Authority.
4. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the
petitioner preferred Writ petition before this Court in W.P.
No.44712/2016, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court
remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to
reconsider each of the contentions raised by the petitioner
and pass a speaking order. On remand, the Appellate
NC: 2024:KHC:5754
Authority, held that the petitioner has not made out any
grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the
Disciplinary Authority and confirmed the order of dismissal
and rejected the appeal.
5. Heard Sri N. Karthik, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel
for the respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is
disproportionate to the misconduct committed and the
punishment imposed on similarly placed persons who were
trapped and found guilty of accepting the bribe amount of
more than the denominations of the petitioner, minor
punishment has been imposed and placed reliance on the
orders in cases of similarly placed persons at Annexures-
"F, "G", "H" and "J". Learned counsel would contend that
the dismissal by the respondent-Corporation is clear
violation of KSRTC Servants (Conduct and Discipline)
NC: 2024:KHC:5754
Regulations, 1971 ('C & D Regulations' for short) and is
against the principles of natural justice, where it violates
the doctrine of proportionality for a minor offence alleged
against the petitioner which also "trapped" illegally was
awarded with major punishment of dismissal from service
and the impugned order is detrimental to the rights and
interest of the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
would justify the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority and would
contend that Board having considered the issues passed
the resolution dated 21.06.2016 in exercise of the power
vested under Regulation 34(2)(c)(i) of C & D Regulations.
It is also contended that the Standing Orders 10/1983
dated 18.08.1983 specifies duties and responsibilities of
Security Officers of the Central Office/Unit heads and the
functions of the Security Officers to assist the
management to weed out the undesirable, dishonest and
corrupt officials by detecting the case based on the
NC: 2024:KHC:5754
complaints, source of information and intelligence
received. The act of the Security Officers within the
parameter of their functions and the disciplinary order is
not narrated to interfere. Learned counsel contends that
the power of the Security and Vigilance Department to
trap the delinquent is very much available and the same is
no more res integra in light of the decision in the case of
Smt. Vidya Raikar and Others Vs. The State of
Karnataka, Department of Transport, rep., by its
Principal Secretary and Others1.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the order of the Disciplinary Authority
confirmed by the appellate authority insofar as
imposing punishment of dismissal warrants
interference by this Court?"
9. It is settled law that the extending the doctrine
of parity, equity clause under Article 14 of the Constitution
2016(3) KAR 776
NC: 2024:KHC:5754
of India which is a positive concept and cannot be
enforced in a negative manner, benefits extended to some
person in an irregular manner cannot be claimed by
another on plea of equity, so also a wrong order or
judgment passed in favour of one person would not entitle
others to claim benefit. It is also settled proposition of law
that action taken must be shockingly disproportionate to
the consciousness of the Court. This Court is well aware
and conscious that a negative benefit given to similarly
placed persons cannot be a parity to be considered,
however, the imposition of punishment by the respondent-
Corporation dismissing the workman from service, which
would ordinarily be disqualification of future employment
is a major punishment for the offence conducted.
10. This Court is also aware that a rupee or a
thousand is not the criteria, but it is mental state of a
person, who has committed the offence. In the instant
case, the petitioner has not been found with any past prior
misconduct and this is of the first of its kind. However, an
NC: 2024:KHC:5754
opportunity to mend her way needs to be accorded to the
petitioner as she has been having 24 years of service
having rendered before attaining superannuation and it is
also necessary to see that vindictive punishment
maliciously imposed cannot be exercised by the
Corporation and point framed for consideration is
answered accordingly, holding the punishment imposed on
the petitioner is disproportionate and warrants
interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned order of dismissal imposing
punishment of dismissal is set aside,
respondent - Corporation to reinstate the
petitioner without backwages, the period of
suspension till reinstatement to be treated as
not on duty.
NC: 2024:KHC:5754
(iii) The punishment would be denial of three
annual increments with cumulative effect,
continuity of service only for terminal benefits.
(iv) Petitioner is not entitled for gratuity under
Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972.
(v) With the above modification, writ petition
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
S*
