Allowed

Shri.Mahantesh Mariyappa Hadimani v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2022WP/105311/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226/227, the Karnataka High Court set aside the Labour Court's dismissal order and reinstated a KSTRTC conductor. The Court found insufficient evidence that the petitioner collected fare for an old ticket despite the charge being proved on other grounds.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all notional benefits by withholding three annual increments cumulatively, without any back wages.

Shri.Mahantesh Mariyappa Hadimani Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 105311 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105311 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI.MAHANTESH MARIYAPPA HADIMANI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: #134/B ANAJANEYA NILAY ANJANEY NAGAR AT POST RAMDURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC BELAGAVI DIVISION, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELAGAVI-590016. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAKASH N.HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2018 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR COURT, BELAGAVI IN KID NO.54/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, NWKRTC, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI DATED 14.06.2017 BE SET ASIDE VIDE ANNEUXRE-A.

¶14

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP No. 105311 of 2019

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner when working as a conductor in the bus, the checking inspector intercepted the bus in which the petitioner was working as conductor, traveling from Belgaum to Bijapur and it was found that there were 67 passengers traveling in the said bus and one of the passenger produced an old ticket of Chikkodi to Belgavi. The article of charges were issued by the respondent-corporation as to why disciplinary enquiry should not be initiated alleging that an old ticket was reissued to one of the passengers and also instigated the passengers against checking officials and stopped the driver from filing the checking documents and refused to hand over way bill etc., and refused to sign the office memo.

¶19

The enquiry officer after conducting an enquiry submitted the report stating that the charges against the petitioners are proved. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report and also the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner raised dispute under Section 10(4)(a) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

¶20

¶21

WP No. 105311 of 2019

¶22

The issue whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner-workman was fair and proper was treated as a preliminary issue and the Labour Court after examining the material held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner-workman was fair and proper. Thereafter the corporation examined one witnesses CW1 and marked document Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and workman examined himself as WW1 and examined another witness namely the driver of the bus as WW2. The Labour Court after examining the evidence on record held that the charges against the petitioner are proved and confirmed the order of dismissal against which present petition is filed.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would make two fold submission, firstly the checking officials has not checked the cash bag to establish that the petitioner collected fair from the one of the passenger to whom the ticket was allegedly reissued. Secondly WW2, the driver of the bus has categorically denied the fact that the workman instigated the passengers and stopped the driver from signing the memo and refused to hand over the way bill. Thirdly none of the passengers of the bus have been examined to substantiate the

¶24

¶25

WP No. 105311 of 2019

¶26

allegation that the petitioner instigated the passengers against the checking officials or refused to sign the memo and to hand over the way bill.

¶27

Fourthly, the checking officer who was examined before the enquiry officer has admitted that the lady passenger had travelled from Chikkodi to Belagavi on the same day. The past history of 71 cases relates to not issuance and non collection of fair. Hence, the past history should not have been taken into account for dismissing the petitioner from service and the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charge levelled against the workman.

¶28

On the other hand, leaned counsel appearing for the corporation would submit that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the petitioner by reissuing an old ticket has cause loss of revenue to the Corporation and also committed breach of trust.

¶29

He further submits that the passengers who were travelling in the bus were accounted and passenger statement was recorded which is evident from the receipt at Ex.C2 imposing penalty on the passenger who was travelling in the

¶30

¶31

WP No. 105311 of 2019

¶32

bus on an old ticket. The order of dismissal is not shockingly disproportionate to the charge which has been proved and also taking into account the past history of 71 cases, the order of dismissal warrant no interference. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendrasanu vs. Karnataka State Board Trasport Corporation 2009 SCC 645.

¶33

I have examined the submissions made by learned

¶34

counsel for the parties.

¶35

The only point that arise for my consideration is that whether the workman after collecting fair from the passenger, reissued old ticket.

¶36

Perusal of the evidence on record indicate that the petitioner-workman has issued old ticket to the passenger. However, the evidence on record does not establish that the petitioner collected the fair from the passenger after issuing the old ticket having regard to the fact the checking official has not checked the cash bag of the conductor-workman. Further the head on count of the passengers is not made, which is normally prescribed at the time of checking.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 105311 of 2019

¶39

General standing order No.166 prescribes procedure

¶40

for line checking, which specifies entry of passengers in the bus at the time of boarding should be conducted and recorded and

¶41

cash check should be conducted as far as possible at terminal points or depot since cash checking consumes considerable time. Whenever buses are intercepted for purpose of checking, the checking officials should take charge of the conductors ticket tray and way bills immediately on entering the bus. The said order however specifies that in the event of conductor refusing to acknowledge the offence memo, the same should be recorded and the signature of the driver should be obtained as evidence. If both the conductors and drivers refuse to acknowledge then the same should be reported in the offence memo and signature of the passenger with addresses should be obtained as witnesses.

¶42

Before the Inquiry Officer, the workman had posed confronted the Checking Inspector, in the cross-examination, that the alleged passenger had travelled from Chikkodi to Belagavi, and on the same day, she was traveling from Belagavi to Chikkodi in the bus in question and there is every possibility that she had shown the ticket issued to her traveling

¶43

¶44

WP No. 105311 of 2019

¶45

from Chikkodi to Belagavi. In response, the Checking Inspector stated that the alleged passenger had stated that she had travelled in a private vehicle. However, the statement of the alleged passenger that she had travelled in a private vehicle is not recorded in the inspection report and also in the statement of the alleged passenger at Ex.C.2.

¶46

Perusal of the material on record indicates that there is no conclusive proof that the workman had collected fare after issuing old ticket to the alleged passenger. The order passed by the Labour Court is on the basis of improper evidence and the same is not sustainable in law. However, this will not absolve the workman of the charge against him, having regard to the past history of the workman wherein he was involved in 73 similar cases.

¶47

In exercise of power conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, I am of the view that the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charge in the absence of any conclusive proof that the workman had collected the fare after issuing an old ticket. Hence, it would be appropriate, if the order of dismissal is set aside and the

¶48

¶49

WP No. 105311 of 2019

¶50

Corporation is directed to reinstate the workman into service by withholding three annual increments cumulatively with all notional benefits flowing from such reinstatement. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Belagavi, in K.I.D.No.54/2017 is modified by directing the respondentCorporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with all notional benefits, by withholding three annual increments cumulatively, however without any back wages. The respondent-Corporation is granted two months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to implement this order.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

AC/KMS

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Shri.Mahantesh Mariyappa Hadimani v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Mahantesh Mariyappa Hadimani v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Fakkirawwa W/O Santosh Goravanakolla Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Prema D/O Ramanna Vaddar, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

The Town Municipal Council, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

H.T. Indrachala S/O Late Sanna Thimmappa Vs the Management of Nekrtc

Shri. Mabusab @ Mehaboobsab S/O Razaksab Vs the State of Karnataka

N M Kittur Vs the Managing Director