Karnataka High Court
Naveen Kumar. M. R vs Karnataka State Road on 20 February, 2024
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7235-DB
WA No. 1608 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR P.S.DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1608 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN KUMAR M.R
Digitally signed by
YASHODHA N S/O RANGASWAMY
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
COURT OF R/AT DOOR NO.632/13
KARNATAKA 2ND MAIN, B.M. SRINAGAR
METAGALLI
MYSORE-570 001 ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MYSORE RURAL DIVISION
MYSORE-570 015
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP No.56295/2017 DATED 29.11.2023 AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7235-DB
WA No. 1608 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal arises out of the order dated
November 29th, 2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in
W.P.No. 56295/2017.
2. Heard Shri. V.S.Naik learned Advocate for the
appellant and Smt. Renuka, learned Advocate for the
respondent.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are, Shri.Naveen
Kumar, working as Driver cum Conductor under KSRTC1,
was subjected to domestic enquiry on the ground that on
13.04.2015, he had failed to issue tickets to nine passengers
and thereby misappropriating the revenue of KSRTC to the
extent of Rs.135/-. The disciplinary authority imposed a
penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved, by the
dismissal order, Naveen approached the Labour Court.
The Labour Court modified the penalty and ordered
withholding of three increments with cumulative effect.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
NC: 2024:KHC:7235-DB
4. Feeling aggrieved, KSRTC filed W.P.No.
56295/2015. The writ petition was allowed and the order of
Labour Court was set- aside. Hence, Naveen has preferred
the instant appeal.
5. Shri. Naik praying to allow the appeal submitted
that:
the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the
merits of the case. There is no finding as to whether
the charges are proved or not;
the 18 cases pending against Naveen are minor
cases and the other 118 cases are disposed of
summarily without proper enquiry;
the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate;
the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the
fact that in similar circumstances KSRTC has taken a
lenient view.
6. Smt. Renuka for the KSRTC argued in support of
the impugned order.
NC: 2024:KHC:7235-DB
7. We have carefully considered rival contentions
and perused the records.
8. Undisputed facts of the case are, charges were
framed against Naveen, working with KSRTC as driver-cum-
conductor, alleging that KSRTC had suffered loss of revenue
because he had not issued tickets to nine passengers
travelling in the bus. The disciplinary authority imposed
penalty of dismissal from service. The Labour Court modified
the order, imposing penalty of withholding of three
increments. This court in W.P.No. 56295/2015 has set-aside
the order of Labour Court.
9. It is not in dispute that Naveen was punished on
118 occasions in the past and is now involved in almost
eighteen cases of NINC2. We may record that non issuance
of ticket is a serious offence and in a bus where only 28
passengers were travelling, issuance of ticket to all the
passengers is not a difficult task.
Not Issued Not Collected
NC: 2024:KHC:7235-DB
10. The disciplinary authority taking into account the
offence of misappropriation and the past conduct of Naveen,
has rightly imposed penalty of dismissal. The Learned Single
Judge in para 6 and 7 of the impugned order has observed
that:
".......The Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the
past conduct of the respondent while evaluating the misconduct
committed by him and this is contrary to the records. The disciplinary
authority has taken into consideration the past conduct of the
respondent while passing the order of dismissal. Needless to observe
that taking note of the past conduct is a mandate requirement as per
Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971.
The disciplinary authority is justified in dismissing the petitioner from
the service.
7. Furthermore, even after the reinstatement, the respondent is
involved in almost eighteen cases of NINC. The past and present
misconduct of the respondent would depict that he is not interested in
discharging his duties diligently and carefully. The Labour Court has
overlooked the misconduct and in particular the involvement of the
respondent in almost one hundred and eighteen cases and simply
proceeded to set-aside the order dismissal. This is unsustainable in
law."
NC: 2024:KHC:7235-DB
11. Thus, the workman has been repeatedly indulging
in misconduct. Learned Single has noted in all 146
(118+28) cases of misconduct. In that view of the matter,
we find no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is
accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
