Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul Aziz Khan

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023WP/36290/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by KSRTC, quashing an Industrial Tribunal award that set aside a driver's punishment for possession of excess. The Court held the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to modify minor penalties, overlooked that causing loss is irrelevant to misconduct, and noted the respondent failed to corroborate his defense.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 18.06.2018 in I.D.No.267/2010 was quashed, and the order of punishment dated 14.05.2009 was confirmed.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40067 WP No. 36290 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.36290 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ABDUL AZIZ KHAN S/O LATE NOOR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, KSRTC, MAZDOOR SANGHA, TUA/19/93-94, BMS OFFICE, NEAR MOVIELAND TALKIES, S.C.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40067 WP No. 36290 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

appeared in person.

¶21

The notice to the respondent was ordered on 16.01.2020. The office note depicts that the respondent is served. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶22

2. The brief facts are these:

¶23

The respondent was a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. On 08.03.2018, he was on duty in the bus that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the route from Poona to Bengaluru. The cash with the respondent was checked by the checking officials at Kempegowda Bus Station, it was found that the respondent was in possession of excess cash of Rs.310/- (Rupees Three Hundred and Ten only) which was not certified which is in violation of Circular instructions. The details of which is as under:

¶24

Total Cash held by the respondent	Rs.810/-
Declared personal cash	Rs.500/-
Undeclared cash	Rs.310/-

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40067 WP No. 36290 of 2019

¶26

The respondent was issued with an offence memo on the spot as regard to the misconduct committed by him. A report was submitted by the Checking Officials with regard to possession of excess cash by the respondent. He was issued with Articles of charge alleging possession of uncertified cash. He submitted his reply explaining that the amount possessed by him was not excess cash and that the same was given to him by a passenger to buy the return ticket. The reply submitted by the respondent was not satisfactory. Hence, he was subjected to disciplinary inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent submitted his reply to the second show cause notice. On 14.05.2009, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and imposed an order of punishment by reducing his basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect.

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40067 WP No. 36290 of 2019

¶28

The respondent raised the dispute and the same was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.267/2010. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The Tribunal vide Award dated:18.06.2018 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.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several

¶30

contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶31

The short point that requires consideration is whether the award of Labour Court requires the interference.

¶32

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment. The charge made against the respondent was that he was in possession of excess cash.

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40067 WP No. 36290 of 2019

¶34

The defense of the workman is as under:

¶35

Reply to the Articles of charge is as under:

¶36

"The personal cash of Rs.500 was declared by him and certified while he proceeded on duty. He stated that his daughter in Mumbai was unwell, therefore he sent amount of Rs.500 to Mumbai through Poona-Mumbai bus."

¶37

Cross examination of the Management witness:

¶38

"The workman questioned the management witness that in his log sheet, there was no mention as regard to the declaration of personal cash of Rs.500/- by him, therefore contended that out of total amount of Rs.810, to declare Rs.500 as his personal cash is without any basis. The management witness replied that the declaration of the personal cash of the driver was entered in the way bill of conductor."

¶39

Defense Statement:

¶40

"The respondent contended that the way bill was not produced, therefore contended that the declaration of Rs.500 as his personal cash is not proved, hence the question of considering the amount of Rs.500 as his personal amount does not arise. Thus in his defence statement he denied the declaration of personal cash of Rs.500/- and contended that the entire amount was given to him by the passenger to buy the return ticket."

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40067 WP No. 36290 of 2019

¶42

The respondent at the time of starting his duty had declared his personal cash of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only). This fact is admitted by him in his reply to the Articles of charge. He contended that he sent the said amount to his daughter at Mumbai, which fact is not proved by him. However, from the stage of cross examination of the Management witness, he takes a defense that the Management has failed to prove that he possessed personal cash of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only). He contended that the entire amount was given to him by a passenger to buy him a return ticket to Poona. Hence, the Tribunal failed to notice the inconsistent statements that was made by the respondent while defending his case. The inconsistent statements made by the respondent clearly established that he wanted to evade being punished for a misconduct.

¶43

From the admission of the respondent in his reply to the Articles of charge, it is proved that he had declared Rs.500/(Rupees Five Hundred only) as his personal cash, later he improved his version to suit his case. Neither he has proved his contentions with regard to sending Rs.500/- (Rupees Five

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:40067 WP No. 36290 of 2019

¶46

Hundred only) to his daughter nor examined the passenger who said to have given him Rs.820/- (Rupees Eight Hundred and Twenty only) to buy the return ticket. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the said passenger reclaimed the amount. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the Checking Officials denied that they were informed by the respondent about the amount paid by the passenger for purchase of return ticket at the time of checking. Therefore, it was mandatory for the workman to examine the passenger in support of his explanation for possession of excess cash. It is needless to say that possession of excess cash is a serious misconduct and therefore, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have examined the misconduct more cautiously. Furthermore, the Tribunal has simply accepted the version of the respondent to conclude that the possession of the amount with the respondent was given by the passenger to buy the return ticket. This is unsustainable in law. The reason is apparent. The passenger has not given evidence that he has given cash to the Conductor to buy the return ticket.

¶47

I have perused the Award of the Tribunal with utmost care. A perusal of the same would reveal that, the Tribunal set-

¶48

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40067 WP No. 36290 of 2019

¶49

aside the order of punishment by holding that the respondent has not caused revenue loss to the Corporation. Causing monetary loss to the Corporation is not the criteria. What was required to be considered is whether the possession of excess cash was a misconduct or not. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Industrial Tribunal. I may venture to say that, the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.

¶50

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 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.

¶51

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:18.06.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:40067 WP No. 36290 of 2019

¶54

in I.D.No.267/2010 vide Annexure-M is quashed. The order of punishment dated:14.05.2009 is confirmed.

¶55

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶56

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.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul Aziz Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul Aziz Khan

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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B Ravindrakumar

The Chief Accounts Officer & Vs Sri. Venkatesh

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs a v Bhuvaneshwar Kumar

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Amaresha

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shek Noorulla