Dismissed

Karnataka State Road v. Shivalingaiah

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022WP/18417/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by KSRTC challenging a Labour Court order that dismissed a driver-cum-conductor. The Court held that KSRTC failed to prove misappropriation of toll funds, as the printout evidence lacked Section 65B certification and no passenger evidence existed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition against the Labour Court order dismissing the workman from service is dismissed.

Karnataka State Road Vs Shivalingaiah — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 18417 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.18417 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHIVALINGAIAH S/O KASHINATHA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT BUDHERA AT POST BIDAR TALUK BIDAR DISTRICT-585401

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 9.10.2015 IN I.D.NO.150/2014 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP No. 18417 of 2017

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶23

i. A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ order or direction to quash the order dated 9.10.2015 in I.D.No.150/2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Bangalore (Annexure-J).

¶24

ii. A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ order or direction to quash the award dated 13.6.2016 in I.D.No.150/2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Bangalore (Annexure-N).

¶25

iii. Such other writ order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems just and expedient in the circumstance of the case.

¶26

The respondent was appointed as a Driver-cumConductor in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘KSRTC’). An article of charge was issued on 08.11.2008 alleging that during the discharge of his duty between 17.10.2007 to 31.07.2008, he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.32,788/-.

¶27

The manner in which the misappropriation was alleged to have occurred is that the respondent while

¶28

¶29

WP No. 18417 of 2017

¶30

paying the amount towards toll fee was required to issue a ticket for the value of the toll fee. Instead of issuing a ticket for that value, the respondent was alleged to have issued multiple tickets for different valuation. It is on that basis that the KSRTC contended that the value of the tickets lesser than the toll fee which had been issued was with an intention to misappropriate the monies and infact, the respondent had issued the tickets to the passengers and later on taken back the tickets and derived benefits therefrom.

¶31

The respondent replied to the charges contending that the respondent was making payment of the due toll charges as and when he came upon a toll plaza. There was no misappropriation as such committed by him. The respondent had not been informed that he had to issue one ticket for the entire toll fee and as such, at different toll gates, he had issued tickets for different stages.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 18417 of 2017

¶34

The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply submitted, a disciplinary inquiry was instituted. The Enquiry Officer after considering the history sheet and various other aspects of the matter came to a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent was true. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the same and dismissed the respondent from service.

¶35

In that background that a claim petition was filed under Section 10(4-A) before the Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.150/2014. The said proceedings came to be allowed. It is aggrieved by the same, the KSRTC is before this Court.

¶36

Ms.Renuka H.R., learned counsel for the KSRTC would submit that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the documents which have been produced by the KSRTC more particularly Ex.M3, which gave a detailed break-up of the tickets which have been issued. The respondent having issued

¶37

¶38

WP No. 18417 of 2017

¶39

tickets to the amount of toll fee being Rs.75/-, had also issued toll fee tickets for lesser amount of Rs.18/- and Rs.36/-. Hence, the respondent being aware that the toll fee being Rs.75/- and having issued a single ticket on several instances, the issuance of multiple tickets on other occasion was only to misappropriate the said money. Apart there from, there is no other reason for issuance of the said tickets and as such, she submits that the value of the tickets which have been issued for Rs.18/- and Rs.36/- if tabulated comes to an amount of Rs.32,788/which is stated to have been misappropriated by the respondent. She submits that this aspect has been referred to in evidence, in the enquiry report as also by the witnesses. On this basis, she submits that the finding of the Labour Court is required to be set aside.

¶40

Per contra, Sri.L Shekar, learned counsel for respondent-workman would submit that there is not an iota of proof, which has been produced by the

¶41

¶42

WP No. 18417 of 2017

¶43

KSRTC before the Labour Court to establish the actual misappropriation as alleged, the entire case of KSRTC is based on assumption and delinquency cannot be assumed on the basis of such assumption and as such, he submits that the petition requires to be dismissed.

¶44

Heard Ms.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.L.Shekar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused papers.

¶45

The only allegation which has been made against the respondent is that the respondent had issued tickets of lesser value than the toll fee and the tickets issued for the lesser value has been misappropriated since those were actual tickets issued to the passengers in the bus and respondent has collected both the fare as also the toll fee enjoying the benefit of amount of Rs.32,788/- as stated supra.

¶46

Though there are several documents which have been produced, the only document which gives a

¶47

¶48

WP No. 18417 of 2017

¶49

calculation of these amounts and/or the basis for the said amounts is Ex.M3, which is a computer printout of the waybill ledger extract including the tollgate fee statement from 17.10.2007 to 31.07.2008 pertaining to the respondent who was a driver-cum-conductor in respect of the said bus.

¶50

Though a perusal of the same would indicate that the tickets to the value of Rs.75/- has been issued as also tickets for a value of Rs.18/- and Rs.36/- have been issued, the claim of KSRTC appears to be that merely because tickets of lesser value of Rs.18/- and Rs.36/- have been issued which is a fare, the issuance of said tickets was done to misappropriate the amounts. This, in the absence of any other evidence and/or documents in support thereof, in my considered opinion, would only amount to an inference and/or assumption being drawn as regards the alleged misappropriation.

¶51

There is no evidence led or document marked to prove that the tickets of Rs.18/- and/or Rs.36/- had

¶52

¶53

WP No. 18417 of 2017

¶54

been issued to passengers and taken return of. No evidence of any passengers was led in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶55

That apart, there is no evidence, which has been placed on record to show that there was only one toll plaza from Bangalore to Tumkur requiring one single payment of Rs.75/- more so when the respondent Driver-cum-Conductor alleges that there were three different toll plazas where the respondent driver had paid the necessary toll fees at toll plaza being at Rs.18/- and other toll plaza being Rs.36/-.

¶56

Even the way bill which has been produced is stated to be a printout of data maintained in the computer of the respondent, no certificate as required Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been produced by the KSRTC to establish the veracity of the said statement. There are no details produced as to how the said statement was prepared and/or tabulated and who maintained the records.

¶57

¶58

WP No. 18417 of 2017

¶59

Some of these aspects have been taken into consideration by the Labour Court and as such, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the allegation of misappropriation has not been established against the respondent. The very same contention and/or allegation being raised before this Court, there being no evidence to support the said allegation, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Labour Court does not require any interference. As such, I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i) The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Prs*

Karnataka State Road v. Shivalingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. Shivalingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. M N Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S a Puttaraju Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Smt Rekha Prasad Vs State Represented by

Sri N Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka