Dismissed

Shyamarao v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023WP/9096/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka petition challenged the validity of letters de charge issued against a conductor post-reinstatement. The Court observed that the General Establishment Order reserved the right to reopen pending cases and found no merit in the petitioner's contention.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition filed for quashing of Articles of Charge was dismissed with no costs.

Shyamarao Vs the Divisional Controller — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:40551 WP No. 9096 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.9096 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHYAMARAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASINGARAO, WORKING AS CONDCTOR, BADGE NO.8753, DEPOT NO.26, B.M.T.C., BENGALURU AND R/AT NO.285/B, HEROHALLI CROSS, MAHADESHWARA NAGARA, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.ANAND., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.V.S.NAIK., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, Location: HIGH B.M.T.C., EAST DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, COURT OF KARNATAKA SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶13

SRI. YOGANARASIMHA RETIRED JOINT LAW OFFICER, B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY.T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 - HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 15.11.2023)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:40551 WP No. 9096 of 2021

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Sri.Anand., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.V.S.Naik., for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

¶22

A perusal of the prayer column would reveal that no relief is sought against respondent No.2. The emergent notice to respondent No.2 was ordered on 25.06.2021. The postal shara depicts that respondent No.2 has not claimed the notice. Hence, notice to respondent No.2 is held sufficient.

¶23

2. The brief facts are these:

¶24

The petitioner is an Ex-service man. He was selected and appointed as a Conductor in the BMTC on 25.05.1999. Upon satisfactory completion of the period of probation, his services stood confirmed. It is said that when he was working in Depot16, the first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings by

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40551 WP No. 9096 of 2021

¶26

issuing articles of charge dated:15.10.2010. It was alleged that on 09.10.2010, while he was conducting the bus on the route from Depot-31 to Kempegowda Bus Station, the vehicle was checked and certain traffic irregularities were noticed. On these allegations, an inquiry was held and he was dismissed from service vide order dated:09.03.2012.

¶27

He raised the dispute before the I Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.10/2012. The Labour Court vide award dated:09.10.2013 confirmed the order of dismissal. Against the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.55401/2013. This Court vide order dated:27.02.2017 partly allowed the Writ Petition and set-aside the award of the Labour Court and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for re-adjudication.

¶28

After remand, the Labour Court vide award dated:23.08.2017 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with all the consequential benefits but without backwages. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, both the Corporation and the workman preferred Writ Petitions in W.P.No.7852/2018 and W.P.No.29481/2018. The Writ Petitions were partly allowed vide order

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40551 WP No. 9096 of 2021

¶30

dated:03.09.2019 and the award of the Labour Court was modified and punishment of withholding two increments was imposed. It was also ordered that the workman is entitled for continuity of service with all consequential benefits. This award is implemented by the Corporation and the petitioner was reinstated into work vide General Establishment Order No.657/2019 dated:30.11.2019.

¶31

As things stood thus, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the first respondent issued Articles of charge dated:03.06.2020 under Regulation 23 of the KSRTC Service (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971. In the Articles of charge, it is alleged that on 25.01.2012, when the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Conductor on route No.245-A/1, the bus was checked by the Checking squad and when the cash held by him towards sale of tickets and pass was checked, there was shortage of Rs.161/- (Rupees One Hundred and sixty one only) in as much as possessing Rs.1,751/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty One only) as cash towards sale of tickets, the petitioner was having Rs.1,590/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety only). The allegation is that after the offence memo was issued, the petitioner

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40551 WP No. 9096 of 2021

¶33

misbehaved with the checking squad by abusing them in a filthy language. It is also alleged that the petitioner managed to secure the reporters of TV9 Electronic media requesting them to relay the incident contending that he has been subjected to torture, etc., The petitioner was called upon to submit his reply to the Articles of charge.

¶34

The petitioner has filed the captioned Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Articles of charge dated:03.06.2020 bearing Reference No.BMS/CO/ED/ DISCIPLINARY/D38/04/1538/20-21 issued by the first respondent and also for a Mandamus to withdraw the Articles of Charge on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.1 have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶36

The point that requires consideration is whether the issuance of Articles of Charge dated:03.06.2020 is just and proper.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:40551 WP No. 9096 of 2021

¶39

Learned counsel Sri.Anand., in presenting his argument vehemently contended that the issue of Articles of charge in respect of the alleged incident dated:25.01.2012 is totally unsustainable and illegal. He argued by saying that the petitioner was taken back to duty and he is continued in employment and discharging his duties diligently. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner was reinstated and hence, the Corporation is not justified in reopening the pending case. Hence, he submits that the Articles of charge are liable to be quashed.

¶40

In reply, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., appearing on behalf of the Corporation contends that though the Articles of charge relates to the incident that occurred on 25.01.2012, even before the Corporation could issue chargesheet in respect of this incident, the respondent was dismissed from service on 09.03.2012 on account of other misconduct. She argued by saying that the petitioner was reinstated and accordingly a GEO was issued on 30.11.2019. Under the GEO, the Corporation reserved the liberty to reopen the pending cases upon reinstatement. Counsel submits that a memo is filed furnishing

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:40551 WP No. 9096 of 2021

¶43

the GEO dated:30.11.2019 and the history sheet and the same may be placed on record and appropriate order may be passed.

¶44

Memo is placed on record. Considered the rival contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties. Perused the General Establishment Order dated:30.11.2019 with utmost care. A perusal of the GEO would reveal that the Corporation had reserved the liberty to reopen the pending cases. Having reserved the liberty, the Corporation is justified in issuing Articles of Charge on 03.06.2020. Furthermore, from 09.03.2012 till 30.11.2019 the respondent was not in service, hence the question of delay in issuing Articles of charge after reinstatement does not arise.

¶45

For the reasons stated above, no grounds are made out to quash the Articles of Charge issued by the Corporation. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

TKN

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Shyamarao v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamarao 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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs S.R. Krishna Kumar

M/S Stumpp Schuele and Somappa Vs the Secretary

M/S Mcf Limited Vs Sri. Jagadish Kunder

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Management of Ksrtc Vs Sri. Sikandar Butkurki

Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri John D Souza