The Divisional Controller vs Sri. B. T. Mayegowda
2024 Latest Caselaw 19157 Kant

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19157 Kant
Judgement Date : 31 July, 2024

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller vs Sri. B. T. Mayegowda on 31 July, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:30311-DB
                                                            WA No. 1271 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

                                             PRESENT

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

                                                AND

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                             WRIT APPEAL NO. 1271 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)

                      BETWEEN:

                      THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
                      KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
                      CORPORATION,
                      HASSAN DIVISION,
                      HASSAN,
                      HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
                      THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C.,
                      CENTRAL OFFICES, K. H. ROAD,
                      SHANTHI NAGAR,
                      BENGALURU-560 027.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH             (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L, ADVOCATE)
VINUTHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              AND:
KARNATAKA
                      SRI. B. T. MAYEGOWDA
                      AGED : MAJOR,
                      REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY,
                      KSRTC EMPLOYEES UNION-INTUC,
                      NO.214/6, SRI MANJUNATHA BUILDING,
                      ADUVALLI MAIN ROAD,
                      HASSAN-573 201.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. SHEKAR.L, ADVOCATE)

                           THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
                      HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:30311-DB
                                         WA No. 1271 of 2023




06/06/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.22881/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP
NO.22881/2017, AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
         and
         HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                      ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

This appeal has been filed by the Karnataka State

Road Transport Corporation challenging the order dated

06.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.22881/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge

has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein by

stating as under:

"11. The fact that the bus which was driven by the workrnar on 09.05.2011 was sent on contract basis from Keralapura to Ramanathapura is not in dispute. The checking squad found that the workman was taking nine passengers by collecting Itickets while returning from Ramanathapura. The allegation of the Corporation is that on return to Ramanathapura, the bus had to return empty but having found nine passengers and cash of Rs.105/- with workman the article of charge was imposed. On the other hand, workman contended that it the contractor himself had asked to drop the said persons to Ramanathapura and thus, the act of carrying of passengers which was on contract basis

NC: 2024:KHC:30311-DB

cannot be attributed as misconduct on part of the workman. A letter issued by the contractor, who has taken the bus on contract at Ex.M.3 stating that contractor himself sent the passengers to Keralapura to Ramanathapura and this document was not corsidered by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment. It is also relevant to state that the amount which is stated to be found in the custody of the driver was not taken by the Checking Squad. On the other hand, Checking Squad has directed the accounts section to collect Rs.105/- from the workman, which is very unnatural. The Tribunal noticing that the bus was on contract basis, the contractor having given a letter stating that he himself has sent the passengers in bus and the checking staff having not seized the amount has held that findings of the Disciplinary Authority is perverse. The manner in which the Tribunal has considered the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered against the petitioner-Corporation and this Court pass the following:

ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

ii. The impugned order dated 17.12.2016 at Annexure-C in Ref.

No.200/2014 on the file of the Tribunal is confirmed."

(Emphasis supplied)

2. The submission of Sri Sanjeev B.L., learned

counsel appearing for the Corporation is that, the Labour

Court nor the learned Single Judge should have interfered

with the minor penalty imposed by the Corporation

NC: 2024:KHC:30311-DB

withholding one increment for a charge against the

respondent, whereby he has allowed certain persons to

travel in the Bus unauthorizedly. There is no dispute that

the proceedings were initiated against the respondent

resulting in the penalty, as noted above. We have already

reproduced the basis for the learned Single Judge to

uphold the order of the Labour Court. As the penalty which

has been set-aside by the Labour Court is of withholding of

one increment, in the facts of this case, we are of the view

that the impugned order needs no interference. The

appeal is dismissed.