In a writ petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge to a Labour Court award dismissing a KSRTC driver for drunkenness on duty. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's plea.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:43104 WP No. 16699 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.16699 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
M.P.MAHESHA S/O SRI M. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.269, E.W.S., 8TH CROSS, GANGOTRI BADAVANE MYSURU.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.MANJULA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.V.S.NAIK., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MYSURU RURAL DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU - 570 001. (BY SRI.R.B.ANEPPANAVAR., ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:43104 WP No. 16699 of 2018
ORDER
Smt.Manjula Kulkarni., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.V.S.Naik., for the petitioner has appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.R.B.Aneppanavar., learned counsel for the respondent has appeared in person.
2. The brief facts are these:
The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation, Mysuru Division in the year 2002. He was conducting the bus that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the route from Mysuru to Kottayam. It is alleged that he had consumed alcohol while on duty. The bus was checked at Sultan Batteri, it was noticed by the Police that he was drunk and the same was proved with the aid of breath-analyser. It is alleged that in the charge sheet, the case filed by the Police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, S.Bathery, the petitioner admitted the guilt and paid a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). This was also made a part of the charge sheet, further alleging that the
petitioner's conduct is dangerous to the traveling public. The respondent issued Articles of charge under Regulation 23 (3 & 4) of the K.S.R.T.C., Servants (C & D) Regulations 1971. Thereafter, the inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his report holding that the charges are proved. He was issued with an show cause notice enclosing the copy of the report. The disciplinary authority on 12.01.2016 passed an order of dismissal.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by invoking the provisions under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Mysuru in I.I.D.No.24/2016. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide Award dated 27.09.2017 rejected the claim statement. 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:43104 WP No. 16699 of 2018
contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.
award of the Labour requires interference.
An attempt is made on behalf of the petitioner to contend that, except the statement of the Security Inspector, no other witness was examined. The Presenting Officer did not examine either the Conductor or any passengers. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider the defense put forth by the petitioner and has mechanically accepted the findings of the inquiry officer. Hence, the order of dismissal is liable to be set-aside.
justified in rejecting the claim statement. He submitted that the petitioner has not made any grounds to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
The issue revolves around the misconduct i.e., the petitioner consumed alcohol while on duty. The charge leveled against the petitioner is serious, i.e., while on duty, he was drunk. It is not in dispute that the petitioner being a Driver of the Corporation, drove the bus in intoxicated manner and it was found that he had consumed alcohol while on duty. The consumption of alcohol was also established by the aid of breath-analyzer. Furthermore, he has admitted the guilt and paid a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) also. However, he sought to justify his conduct by stating that he had chewed pan-parag and he had not drunk. This aspect of the matter has been negatived by the Labour Court. I do not wish to set-aside the said finding. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is just and proper. Needless to say that consuming alcohol and driving the bus certainly amounts to a misconduct. The Corporation is justified in imposing the order of punishment. The Labour Court also extenso referred to the
NC: 2023:KHC:43104 WP No. 16699 of 2018
material on record and justified in confirming the order of punishment. I find no grounds to interfere with the order of punishment. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits, and it is liable to be dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award dismissing the petitioner from service for drunkenness on duty.
M.P. Mahesha
The Divisional Controller, KSRTC
Jyoti Mulimini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
