Partly allowed

Sri G Nagaraja v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023WP/8309/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge modified the Industrial Tribunal's award by reducing the period of minor penalty imposed on KSRTC employee from two years to one year, finding charge No.1 proved but charge No.2 unsupported by adequate documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award imposing minor penalty is modified by reducing the petitioner's basic pay by one stage for a period of one year instead of two years.

Sri G Nagaraja Vs the Divisional Controller — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 8309 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 8309 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI G NAGARAJA, S/O. GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR, BADGE NO.471, K.R. PETE DEPOT, MANDYA-571 426.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA-571 401.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.12.2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ITS CONFIRMATION ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE IN REFERENCE NO.209/2015 DATED 21.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND G AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

WP No. 8309 of 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is working as conductor in the respondent - Corporation. On 18.7.2011, he was issued with article of charges alleging that, when he was on duty in route No.34/35, which was plied between Mysuru and Bengaluru from 2.30 to 3.30, the petitioner left the bus without informing the driver at 2.30 and returned at 3.30, due to which, the route was delayed, and the passengers were put to inconvenience. It was further alleged that, on 30.9.2011, when the petitioner - workman was informed by Sri Adaiah Singanaguthi to meet the Divisional Controller, and he has been placed as substitute on the route, the petitioner - workman arrogantly stated that, he would not meet anybody, and will not allow others to discharge his duty. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that, the charge against the petitioner - workman was proved.

¶21

The Disciplinary Authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing, and after considering the explanation offered by the workman, passed an order imposing minor penalty reducing the basic scale of the petitioner by one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect, against which, the petitioner - workman raised a dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶22

The domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner - workman was held to be fair and proper. Therefore, the workman examined himself as WW1 and marked the documents as Ex.W1 to Ex.W9, and the Corporation examined MW1 and MW2 and marked the documents as EXs.M1 to M15.

¶23

¶24

WP No. 8309 of 2018

¶25

The Industrial Tribunal, after examining the evidence on record held the charge against the petitioner - workman is proved and accordingly dismissed the claim petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

The Industrial Tribunal, after examining the oral and documentary evidence, held that the charge No.1 against the workman was proved. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence on record, and cannot be said to be based on improper or no evidence at all. In the absence of any perversity or arbitrariness in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as it relates to charge No.1 does not warrant any interference.

¶28

The Tribunal has held that, the charge No.2 against the workman is proved on the basis of the statement of Sri Adaiah Singanaguthi, however, no documentary evidence is produced on record to substantiate that, the petitioner - workman was required to meet the Divisional Controller, and for having not met the Divisional Controller, it cannot be said that, the petitioner - workman has disobeyed the order of higher officer. The Divisional Controller to whom the petitioner - workman has not allegedly reported was not examined to prove the charge No.2. In the absence of any evidence except the statement of Sri Adaiah Singanaguthi i.e. MW1, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that, the charge No.2 is proved, is without any substance. Hence, the impugned award imposing

¶29

¶30

WP No. 8309 of 2018

¶31

the minor penalty requires to be altered/modified. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶34

ii) The order of punishment imposing the minor penalty is modified by reducing the basic pay of the petitioner - workman by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect. To this extent, the impugned award dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Ref. No.209/2015 is hereby modified.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri G Nagaraja v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Nagaraja 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar. C Vs the Commissioner of Excise

M/S Nanjappa Trust Vs Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Panchayat Development Officer Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Minimum

Sri K N Nagaraj Vs Sri S Padhmanabhan

Wonderla Karmika Sangha Vs the Management

Shahanaz Begum Vs the Divisional Controller