Karnataka High Court
Fakeerappa Hittalamani vs The Divisional Controller on 19 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7352
WP No. 41541 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.41541 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
FAKEERAPPA HITTALAMANI
S/O THIPPANNA HITTALAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT GOVINALA,
SHIRAHATTI TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI L.SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
K.S.R.T.C.,
Digitally RAMANAGARA DIVISION,
signed by KIMCO BUILDING, MYSORE ROAD,
PRAMILA G V BANGALORE - 560 038.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT
OF (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.3.2013 PASSED BY I ADDL.
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.9/2012 AT
ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED
28.12.2013 PASSED BY I ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE,
IN I.D.NO.9/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION
AND ALLOW THE CLAIM STATEMENT AS PRAYED FOR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7352
WP No. 41541 of 2015
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the award dated
28.12.2013 in I.D.No.9/2012 on the file of I Addl. Labour
Court, Bengaluru.
2. In terms of the said award, the Labour Court
has rejected the reference and upheld the penalty of
dismissal imposed by the respondent-Corporation. Hence,
the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Certain facts are admitted. The petitioner was
working as a Conductor under the respondent-Corporation,
when the alleged incident took place in the year 2009. The
respondent-Corporation alleged that while the petitioner
was working as a Conductor on 07.06.2009 on his way
from Anekal to Kywara, the bus was intercepted by the
officials and it was found that five persons were not issued
tickets and fare was not collected from those five persons.
NC: 2025:KHC:7352
4. The charge memo was issued against the
petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges. The inquiry
was held and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority
imposed the penalty of dismissal.
5. The petitioner/workman raised the dispute
before the Labour Court. He raised the contention that the
inquiry was not fair and proper. The Labour Court found
that the inquiry is proper and thereafter, the parties led
evidence on the contentions relating to victimization. The
Labour Court, thereafter, found that the penalty of
dismissal imposed on the petitioner was justified and
rejected the reference.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
taking through the facts of the case would contend that
the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer is vitiated as the
mandatory requirement prescribed under the Karnataka
State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and
Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short "Regulations,
NC: 2025:KHC:7352
1971") were not followed. It is urged that the Labour
Court has failed to take note of defect in the inquiry, which
resulted in miscarriage of justice. Elaborating on his
submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
urge that the requirement of Clause 18 of Regulation 23 of
said Regulations, 1971, is completely violated and the
circumstances appearing against the petitioner were not
explained by the Inquiry Officer and for this reason, he
would submit that the inquiry has to be set aside and the
award of the Tribunal has to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also
refer to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Sri Rajanna Vs. The Management
of KSRTC1.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Corporation taking through the order sheet of the
proceedings would contend that the Officer has recorded
W.P.NO.12639/2005 (L-KSRTC)
NC: 2025:KHC:7352
the reasons as to why he has chosen not to examine the
petitioner/delinquent employee before him and the Labour
Court on appreciation of evidence has concluded that the
proceeding is fair and proper.
9. It is also her submission that the petitioner has
participated in the departmental inquiry before the Inquiry
Officer and also participated in the proceedings before the
Labour Court and assuming that there is some procedural
violation, same has not caused any prejudice to the
petitioner. Thus, it is urged that the petition is to be
dismissed and penalty of dismissal has to be upheld.
10. This Court has considered the contentions
raised at the Bar and perused the records.
11. The crux of the argument advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner is with reference to Clause 18 of
Regulation 23. The said Regulation states that the
Inquiring Authority, may, after the Corporation Servant
closes his case, and shall, if the Corporation servant has
NC: 2025:KHC:7352
not examined himself, generally question him on the
circumstances, appearing against him in the evidence for
the purpose of enabling the Corporation servant to explain
any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
12. The aforementioned clause would indicate two
parts. The first part is dealing with a situation where the
Corporation servant has examined himself. The second
part deals with a situation where the Corporation servant
has not examined himself. When the Corporation servant
has examined himself, the Inquiry Officer has the
discretion either to examine the Corporation servant or not
to examine, because the word used is "may".
13. As far as the second situation is concerned, that
is where the Corporation servant has not examined
himself, the Inquiry Officer is under an obligation to
examine the servant and explain the circumstances
appearing against him. This part is mandatory because of
the use of the word "shall" in the said clause.
NC: 2025:KHC:7352
14. The use of two different words namely "may
and shall" in the same provision would make it very clear
that, in first situation, the Inquiry Officer has an option of
examining or not examining the witness. In later situation,
the Inquiry Officer is mandated to examine the
Corporation servant.
15. There is no dispute over the fact that, after the
closure of the evidence on behalf of the Corporation, the
Corporation servant has not examined himself. Thus,
second part of Clause 18 of Regulation 23 of Regulations,
1971, does apply to the facts of the case.
16. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Sri Rajanna (stated supra) in W.P.No.12639/2005
has dealt with the scope of Clause 18 of Regulation 23 and
the Court has also taken a view that in case the procedure
contemplated under Clause 18 of Regulation 23 is not
followed, the inquiry is vitiated.
NC: 2025:KHC:7352
17. The Labour Court unfortunately has not noticed
the requirement under Clause 18 of Regulation 23. Since,
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken a view that
the procedure contemplated under Clause 18 of Regulation
23 is mandatory and same is shown to be not followed,
this Court is of the view that the proceeding is vitiated.
18. Under these circumstances, the petition has to
be allowed. Hence the following
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned award dated 28.12.2013 in
I.D.No.9/2012 on the file of I Addl. Labour
Court, Bengaluru, is quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court
for fresh consideration in accordance with
law. The Labour Court has to afford
opportunity to both the parties to
substantiate their case and thereafter, has to
NC: 2025:KHC:7352
pass appropriate orders based on the
materials available on record.
(iv) It is further made clear that nothing is
expressed on the merits of the matter. All
contentions kept open.
(v) The parties shall appear before the Labour
Court on 20.03.2025 without awaiting any
further notice.
(vi) Registry to send back the records
immediately.
(vii) Since, it is stated that the petitioner is on
the verge of retirement, both the parties
shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of
the proceeding before the Labour Court.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
PB
