Dismissed

Sri. H. C. Lokesh v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2023WP/15936/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this service disciplinary case, the Writ Petitioner, an office assistant, faced punishment for drunk dialling his superior at 3 a.m. Admitting the charges, he sought to justify the act via personal family issues. The Court held that the misconduct was inappropriate and unfitting, finding no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's award dismissing his grievance.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as the Tribunal's award required no interference given the admitted misconduct.

Sri. H. C. Lokesh Vs the Divisional Controller — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37789 WP No. 15936 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.15936 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. H.C.LOKESH S/O CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OFFICE ASSISTANT, IN THE OFFICE OF: DIVISION MECHANICAL, ENGINEERING SECTION, DIVISIONAL WORKSHOP, KSRTC, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.C.SUNDARESH., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201. (BY SRI. R.B.ANEPPANAVAR., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶14

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

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37789 WP No. 15936 of 2018

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Sri.Sundaresh. H.C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.B.Aneppanavar., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶18

2. The brief facts are these:

¶19

The petitioner was working as an Office Assistant in the establishment of the Corporation. The Corporation issued Articles of Charge alleging that on 05.06.2014, the petitioner made a phone call to his superior officer Mr.Doddamuni early in the morning at about 3:00 a.m., and spoke in a loud voice by using filthy words. It is also alleged that on the fifth day of June 2014, he attended the duty under intoxication and misbehaved. The petitioner replied to the Articles of charge.

¶20

A detailed inquiry was conducted by appointing an inquiry officer and the inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. Based on the report submitted by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment withholding one annual increment of the petitioner permanently with cumulative effect.

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37789 WP No. 15936 of 2018

¶22

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is said that the Appellate Authority without hearing the petitioner dismissed the appeal. As things stood thus, the petitioner raised the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.79/2016. The Industrial Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide Award dated 01.08.2017 rejected the reference. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶24

The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal requires interference.

¶25

This is an interesting case of drunk dialling by an employee of the Corporation. Drunk dialling means an intoxicated person making phone calls. In the present case,

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37789 WP No. 15936 of 2018

¶27

the petitioner was issued with Articles of Charge alleging that he made a phone call to his superior officer at about 3:00 a.m., and spoke to him in a loud voice by using filthy words. The petitioner replied to the Articles of Charge on 26.06.2014. The reply to the Articles of Charge is marked as Ex.M2. A perusal of the same would reveal that the petitioner has admitted that he was drunk, and he made a phone call to his superior officer early in the morning at about 3:00 a.m., and he has also admitted that he attended the work under the influence of alcohol.

¶28

An attempt is made on behalf of the petitioner to contend that because of family issues, the petitioner was disturbed, hence he was constrained to consume alcohol. The petitioner vehemently contended that the charges made against him were baseless.

¶29

Since the misconduct relates to drunk calling, let me pose a few questions to the delinquent.

¶30

Is it appropriate to call someone at 3.00 a.m.? What is the urgency to call early in the morning? Is it not rude to call a

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:37789 WP No. 15936 of 2018

¶33

superior officer at 3. a.m.? How do you politely call someone? How do you make a formal phone call?

¶34

The delinquent has admitted that he was drunk and made a phone call to his Superior officer early in the morning and attended the duty under the influence of alcohol. In view of the admission about the misconduct, the delinquent has to introspect and find out answers for himself to the aforesaid queries.

¶35

Suffice it to note that on the Fifth day of June, 2014, the petitioner made a drunk dialing to his superior officer. It is interesting to notice that despite the admission of the charges, the petitioner sought to justify his action by saying that he was disturbed due to certain family issues and contends that the charges are baseless. I am unable to accept the stand taken by the petitioner. The reason is quite simple. The petitioner being an Office Assistant ventured to disturb his superior officer by making a phone call early in the morning at about 3.00 a.m. There was no urgency to call and disturb the Officer. The relationship of the petitioner with the Superior officer is purely professional and the approach of the petitioner should have

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:37789 WP No. 15936 of 2018

¶38

been more formal. Regardless of the situation and the reasons, it is important that the approach and the conversation remain strictly professional. The petitioner ought to have analyzed the negative consequences of his act. I have no hesitation in saying that non-emergency calls are considered rude.

¶39

Furthermore, the Tribunal took note of the fact that there is a clear admission about his misconduct and concluded that the Corporation is justified in imposing a punishment and consequently rejected the Reference. I find no reason to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits, and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

Sri. H. C. Lokesh v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H. C. Lokesh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Yashwanth G E

G Mahadevamma Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

K Mahadevaiah Vs Managing Director