The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award in a service dispute. The petitioner, a KSRTC driver, sought quashing of a punishment for alleged misconduct involving absence from duty. The court found the Tribunal's findings correct and had no reason to interfere.
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:40820 WP No. 40309 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.40309 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI P.SUBRAMANYA S/O PUTTASWAMY ACHAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, DRIVER, BADGE NO.5847 KSRTC, HASSAN DEPOT NO.1, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNDARESH H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201.
(BY SMT.H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., 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 HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:40820 WP No. 40309 of 2014
ORDER
Sri.Sundaresh. H.C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., for the respondent, appeared in person.
The petitioner was working as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. While on duty, on 09.04.2002, he was conducting the bus that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the route from Hassan to Kottayam and from Kottayam to Hassan. As the work on that route was more than eight hours per day, two drivers were entrusted to drive the bus one after another. The schedule of the bus is as under:
09.04.2002: Leave Hassan at 5:00 p.m., 10.04.2002: Reach Kottayam by 8:30 a.m., 10.04.2002: Leave Kottayam at 7:00 p.m., 11.04.2002: reach Hassan at 10:30 am.,
On 11.04.2002 at 6:30 a.m., when the Checking squad of
the Corporation checked the bus at Nanjanagudu, the petitioner was not in the bus and alleged that he had participated in the
NC: 2023:KHC:40820 WP No. 40309 of 2014
procession and strike organized by the federation by absenting himself from duty. It is said that this act of the petitioner was misconduct and hence, the charge sheet was issued.
The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the charge sheet denying the charges levelled against him. In the reply statement, he stated that on that day, he drew the vehicle from Kallikote to Gundlupet and thereafter, he handed over the bus to another driver namely Sannegowda for further driving. He got off the bus at Gundlupet to participate in the inquiry proceedings of a workman as a Co-worker at Gundlupet Depot. Since the inquiry was adjourned, the petitioner came to Mysore on another bus and drew the vehicle from Mysore to Hassan. He further stated that no inconvenience or loss caused to the passengers or the Corporation. Hence, he sought to justify his conduct by stating that his act did not amount to misconduct. Since the reply was not satisfactory, the Corporation appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry in respect of the alleged charges. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. Based on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment on 21.09.2005 withholding three increments permanently.
Aggrieved by the order of the punishment, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Conciliation Authority. It is said that the Management did not cooperate in the conciliation proceedings, the Conciliation Authority submitted a report of failure before the Government. The Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.85/2006. The Industrial Tribunal held that the inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. Hence, the parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Industrial Tribunal vide Award dated 04.01.2013 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:40820 WP No. 40309 of 2014
This is an interesting case of a co-driver who got off the bus while discharging his duty. The issue revolves around the misconduct of a co-driver, therefore, let us quickly glance at the duties and responsibilities of a driver.
The bus drivers are trained to drive a bus. Their primary responsibility is to follow an assigned route. They take the passengers to specified destinations along their route. Their responsibilities include keeping to the operating schedule for their routes, obeying traffic laws and assisting passengers with disabilities. They are responsible for basic maintenance, including checking the vehicle's oil, tires, and lights, in addition to keeping the bus clean.
Suffice it to note that the petitioner, a co-driver, along with one Sannegowda was entrusted to drive the bus that belonged to the Corporation from Hassan to Kottayam. The schedule of the bus is as under:
09.04.2002: Leave Hassan at 5:00 p.m.,
10.04.2002: Reach Kottayam by 8:30 a.m.,
10.04.2002: Leave Kottayam at 7:00 p.m., 11.04.2002: reach Hassan at 10:30 am.,
NC: 2023:KHC:40820 WP No. 40309 of 2014
It is not in dispute that both the drivers drove the bus from Hassan to Kottayam. On 11.04.2002, while returning from Kottayam at about 6:30 a.m., the checking squad of the Corporation checked the bus at Nanjanagudu and it was found that the petitioner was not in the bus, hence the Checking squad made an endorsement in this regard in the log-sheet. The co-driver Sannegowda gave a statement. The Checking squad made a report of the incident and reported the same to the Corporation.
An attempt is made on behalf of the petitioner that he drove the bus from Kallikote to Gundlupet and thereafter, handed over the bus to Sannegowda for further driving. In reply to the charge sheet, he states that he was compelled to get down the bus at Gundlupet to participate in the inquiry proceedings of a workman as a co-worker; since the proceedings were adjourned, he came to Mysore in another vehicle at about 7:15 a.m., and he drove the bus from Mysore to Hassan. He sought to justify his action by contending that his absence from duty i.e., getting off the bus has neither caused inconvenience to the passengers nor a monetary loss to the Corporation.
NC: 2023:KHC:40820 WP No. 40309 of 2014
In this backdrop, what is required to be considered is whether the act of the petitioner to get off the bus is justified. The simple answer is No. A Driver's main responsibility is to safely transport passengers from one location to another. They must follow traffic laws and correctly route themselves. In the present case, the petitioner got off the bus and sought to justify his wrongful act. In this Court also, he sought to justify his wrongful act. The petitioner being a co-driver is required to be on the bus and not to get off the bus. The act of a co-driver who got off the bus is certainly misconduct.
The Industrial Tribunal took note of the material on record and rightly rejected the reference. I find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The rejection of the reference is just and proper. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits, and it is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .
TKN, MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
Sd/JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Industrial Tribunal's decree rejecting the reference in a civil servant misconduct case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri P.Subramanya
The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
