Allowed

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc v. Sri. K N Balachandra Rai

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/3205/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Industrial Tribunal's award. The Court held the Tribunal erred in setting aside the minor penalty, noting it lacks power to modify such penalties, and observed discrepancies in the evidence used to justify ignoring the ticketing charge.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 29.06.2019 is quashed; the order of punishment dated 09.09.2015 is confirmed.

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Sri. K… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39731 WP No. 3205 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3205 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE - 582 120.

¶10

NOW REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. K.N.BALACHANDRA RAI, CONDUCTOR, BADGE NO.1665 REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC, MAJDOOR UNION, FELIX PAI BAZAR MANGALORE - 575 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(RESPONDENT - SERVED)

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:39731 WP No. 3205 of 2021

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶24

2. The brief facts are these:

¶25

The respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He was conducting the bus that belonged to the Corporation that was playing on the route from Mumbai to Mangalore. The bus was intercepted at Pune and upon inspection it was found that the respondent had neither issued ticket to one passenger nor collected ticket fare of Rs.850/- (Rupees Eight Hundred and Fifty only). Hence, he came under a disciplinary proceedings. A detailed inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted a detailed report to the disciplinary authority holding that the respondent is guilty of charges. The second show cause notice was issued to the respondent for which he submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority considering the gravity of the misconduct, passed the punishment order on 09.09.2015 postponing ensuing two annual increment with cumulative effect.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39731 WP No. 3205 of 2021

¶27

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.110/2017. The Industrial Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated:29.06.2019 set-aside the order of punishment. 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.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶29

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The Tribunal set-aside the order of punishment placing reliance on the evidence of the workman. Suffice it to note that, before the inquiry proceedings, one witness was examined on behalf of the workman who alleged to have traveled in the said bus in Seat No.39. In the cross examination, he has deposed that the person for whom the respondent had not issued ticket had booked the ticket through an agent and he had lost the ticket. The Tribunal took note of the said evidence and concluded that the workman was not required to issue a ticket to a passenger who had already

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39731 WP No. 3205 of 2021

¶31

booked a ticket through his agent. This observation is incorrect. The reason is apparent. There is nothing on record to show that the person who alleged to have travelled in the bus on that day in Seat No.39 is the same person who had deposed on behalf of the workman before the inquiry proceedings. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Tribunal.

¶32

Furthermore, the finding that the Checking staff ought to have checked the cash bag of the workman is also unsustainable, since the checking of the cash bag is of no consequence. What is required to be considered is whether the workman being the Conductor was diligent in discharging his duties i.e., whether he had issued tickets and collected fare. In the present case, the workman had neither issued ticket nor collected fare. The charges were held to be proved before the inquiry officer. Taking note of the same, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty. However, the Tribunal setaside the order of minor punishment. This is unsustainable in law.

¶33

In my opinion, the Tribunal has erred in modifying the minor penalty. This modification is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to modify the minor penalty. The Tribunal could not have been pressed into service

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39731 WP No. 3205 of 2021

¶35

the aspect of minor penalty. Furthermore, the Managerial decision to impose minor penalty is absolute and the same cannot be modified by the Tribunal. Hence, the modification of the order of punishment is unsustainable in law. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶36

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:29.06.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.110/2017 vide Annexure-A is quashed. The order of punishment dated:09.09.2015 is confirmed.

¶37

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶38

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted by this Court stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

MRP/TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc v. Sri. K N Balachandra Rai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc v. Sri. K N Balachandra Rai

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

M/S. Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Company Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M G Mohammad Tabib Vs the Director (P & E)

K N Venkatesh Vs the Divisional Controller

The Divisional Controller, Ksrtc Vs Sri. Basavaraju

Sri. Deviprasad K K Vs the Management of

Karnataka State Road Vs C Mohan Kumar