Dismissed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri M Muniraju

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2022WP/26534/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order that reduced a dismissal penalty, the High Court of Karnataka held that the reduction was appropriate. The Court observed that after the respondent's reinstatement, he had no major delinquencies for six years, indicating reform. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the punishment reduction and dismissed the writ.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; the Labour Court order reducing punishment to three increments is upheld.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri M Muniraju — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 26534 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 26534 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

¶10

BMTC, ESAST DIVISION, DOMLUR, BANGALORE, NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 027

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI M MUNIRAJU

¶15

S/O. LATE. MUNISHAMAPPA,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶17

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

R/AT RAMAPURA VILLAGE,

¶19

VIRGONAGAR POST,

¶20

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 560049

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI M. C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WP FILED IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

¶24

227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

¶25

¶26

WP No. 26534 of 2016

¶27

THE AWARD DATED 10.09.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALROE IN I.D.28/2014 AT ANNEX-J AND ETC.

¶28

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING 'B'

¶29

GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

a) "Issue a Writ, Writ in the nature of the Certiorari, quashing the Award dated 10.09.2015 passed by the 1st Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.28/2014, vide Annexure - 'J'.

¶33

b) Further be pleased to call for the records on the file of the 1st Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.28/2014.

¶34

c) Grant such other relief or reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶35

The respondent was a conductor in the petitionerCorporation and was discharging his duty at Depot No.29. On 16.04.2011, when he was en-routed from

¶36

Shivajinagar to K.R.Puram, the said bus came to be

¶37

¶38

WP No. 26534 of 2016

¶39

intercepted at 23.00 hrs by the checking staff at Stage No.6. Out of 25 passengers and 48 pass holders traveling in the bus, the checking staff noticed that he had failed to issue tickets of Rs.10/each to a group of four passengers travelling from Maruthi Seva Nagar to Ramamurthy Nagar as also failed to issue tickets of Rs.10 each to a group of eight passengers travelling from Coles Park to Banasawadi. In both cases, he had also failed to collect the requisite fare, causing a loss to the Corporation.

¶40

Noticing the above irregularities, a penalty was imposed on ticket-less passengers and an offence memo came to be issued. Upon receiving the report from the checking staff, the article of charge came to be issued on 01.07/08.2011 along with the statement of imputation and documents. The workman participated in the said proceedings. The

¶41

¶42

WP No. 26534 of 2016

¶43

enquiry officer submitted a report holding the charges to be proved a second show cause notice was issued calling upon him to submit a reply, which was so submitted. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry and reply, taking note of the past history, has dismissed the workman from service vide order dated 04.12.2013.

¶44

In regard thereto, the workman raised a dispute before the Labour Court. Upon considering all the pleadings and evidence on record, the Labour Court held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper, but however, held that the punishment to be disproportionate and reduced the punishment to three increments with cumulative effect. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- Corporation is before this Court.

¶45

Sri T. Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the respondent

¶46

¶47

WP No. 26534 of 2016

¶48

has a past history of several such misdemeanours and delinquencies. In fact, this history shows 115 such incidents which have been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority while dismissing the respondent. It is required for serious punishment to be imposed. The punishment is not disproportionate.

¶49

The Labour Court erred in coming to a conclusion that the same is disproportionate. The Labour Court did not take into consideration the past history but only considered the current offence where the enquiry was initiated. If the past history was considered, the order of the Labour Court would not have been passed. On this ground, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed, the order of the Labour Court set aside and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority be confirmed.

¶50

¶51

WP No. 26534 of 2016

¶52

Sri M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for

¶53

the respondent-workman would however submit that what has been produced is only the history sheet, and no details of the said delinquency has been produced or exhibited before the Labour Court. No disciplinary proceedings have been initiated as regards those alleged delinquencies. It is only as regards the present matter relating to non-issuance of tickets that was before the Court. The Labour Court has rightly held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. On this ground, he submits that the petition is required to be dismissed.

¶54

Heard Sri T. Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.C.Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for the respondentworkman and perused the papers.

¶55

On arguments being advanced, this Court had directed Sri T. Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel to

¶56

¶57

WP No. 26534 of 2016

¶58

verify and produce documents, if any, as regards the misconduct of the respondent-workman post his reinstatement by the order of the Labour Court. Today, a memo has been filed enclosing a history sheet which is taken on record.

¶59

A perusal of the same indicates that post his reinstatement in June, 2016, there are three delinquencies which have been reported in history sheet one on 23.07.2016 for non-issuance and noncollection of fare of Rs.25; the second on 24.10.2016 again for non-issuance and non-collection of fare of Rs.20; and last being on 25.03.2021 for issuing unauthorized tickets (7 tickets of Rs.10 each).

¶60

The punishment is normally imposed on a workman or anyone else so as to have a deterrent effect on other wrong-doers and also in order to make known to the offender that if a particular action is taken or not taken, there could be a possibility of punishment

¶61

¶62

WP No. 26534 of 2016

¶63

imposed. The punishment is required to have two effects one to have a deterrent effect and the other to have a reformative effect.

¶64

In the present case, though there has been a history of 115 cases over a period of 7 years prior to his dismissal, post his reinstatement, over a period of 6 years, there are three delinquencies alleged against the respondent. In my considered view, the same would show that the respondent has reformed himself, learned from his mistakes and he has not committed the same mistakes and/or wrongs after being reinstated.

¶65

At this stage, after a lapse of 6 years after reinstatement, I am of the considered view that it would not be proper for this Court to examine whether the earlier history was considered by the Labour Court or not when the present history shows that the workman has reformed himself. The

¶66

¶67

WP No. 26534 of 2016

¶68

punishment of reduction of three increments with cumulative effect, in my considered opinion has been sufficient enough to reform the respondent. As such, I do not see any reason to interfere with the said

¶69

order, which has had the desired effect.

¶70

In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed .

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

¶73

KTY

The Divisional Controller v. Sri M Muniraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri M Muniraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. C. Dhamodhar Vs Shree. Dhanalakshmi Enterprises

Smt. H N Uma Vs Sri. P Anantha Rama Rao

Mr. D M Prasad Vs Mr Mohan Kumar

Sri Mirle Varadaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P C Byreddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Renuka Halavala Vs the Managing Director Ksrtc