Allowed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri.N.S. Sujatha

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024WP/14367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC challenged an Industrial Tribunal award quashing a minor punishment imposed on a conductress for failing to issue tickets and collect fares. The High Court held the domestic inquiry followed natural justice, held the Tribunal could not set aside a minor penalty absent perversity or victimization, and confirmed the punishment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tribunal's preliminary-issue order and award quashed; minor punishment of 24.01/02.2015 confirmed; interim order discharged.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri.N.S. Sujatha — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51290 WP No. 14367 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 14367 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. N.S.SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, NO.2526, K.S.R.T.C., CHITRADURGA DEPOT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KSRTC EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

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

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:51290 WP No. 14367 of 2024

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶22

Notice to the respondent was ordered on

¶23

26.06.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶24

3. The short facts are these:

¶25

Smt.N.S.Sujatha - the respondent was appointed as a Conductress in the establishment of the Corporation. On 10.11.2013, she was performing the duty in bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing No.F-814 that was plying on the route from Chitradurga to Sirigere, the checking officers of the Corporation subjected the said bus for checking at Beeravvara Stage. At the time of checking, there were 22+00+00 passengers and the respondent had not issued tickets to a group of three passengers traveling from Chitradurga to Sirigere Cross nor collected the requisite fare of Rs.20/- each

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51290 WP No. 14367 of 2024

¶27

from them, with an intention to pilfer the State revenue. On detecting such misconduct on the part of the respondent, the checking officials passed remarks and issued offence memo to the respondent on the spot by recording the offence committed by her and thereafter, submitted a detailed report to the Disciplinary Authority along with relevant documents. Based on the report, the Disciplinary Authority placed the respondent under suspension and issued Articles of charge. She submitted her reply.

¶28

Taking note of the seriousness of the charges and the explanation offered by the respondent was not satisfactory and convincing, the disciplinary authority decided to conduct an inquiry to find out the truth in the charges leveled against the respondent and appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry strictly in accordance with law and following the principles of natural justice and 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, she submitted her reply to the same. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material on record and the history sheet of the respondent, passed an

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:51290 WP No. 14367 of 2024

¶31

order of minor punishment on 24.01/02.2015 reducing one annual increment permanently from the basic pay and treated the suspension period as not on duty.

¶32

The respondent raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in I.D.No.324/2016. The Tribunal vide order dated 12.10.2022 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Tribunal vide award dated 07.03.2023 set-aside the order of minor punishment. The order passed on the domestic inquiry and the award are called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner has urged several

¶34

contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶35

The following points would arise for consideration:

¶36

Whether the Industrial Tribunal justified in concluding that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper?

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51290 WP No. 14367 of 2024

¶38

Whether the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal requires interference?

¶39

Suffice it to note that the order on the preliminary issue was made on 07.03.2023. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper on the ground that none of the ticketless passengers were examined. This is untenable. The law does not contemplate that the ticketless passengers must be examined in the inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal also held that the findings of the inquiry officer is no where related to the alleged Articles of charge. This is incorrect. The delinquent appeared before the inquiry officer and filed preliminary statement and did not plead guilty. The inquiry was adjourned from time to time. The delinquent filed her defense statement and the inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the law and adhering to the principles of natural justice. Hence, the Tribunal is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the findings of the inquiry officer is no where related to the alleged articles of charge and hence, the domestic inquiry is not fair and proper. What was required to be considered by the Tribunal was about the fairness of the domestic inquiry i.e., principles of natural

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51290 WP No. 14367 of 2024

¶41

justice is followed or not and the inquiry conducted is in fair and proper manner. It is evident that the inquiry was held following the principles of natural justice. Hence, the reasons accorded by the Tribunal that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper is incorrect. The Tribunal has failed to pass a suitable order on the domestic inquiry. Hence, the order passed on the domestic inquiry is liable to be set-aside and so it is set-aside.

¶42

Next, let me consider the merits of the case. The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry for an act of misconduct i.e., non issue of tickets and non collection requisite fare and was visited with an order of minor punishment in the year 2015 i.e., on 24.01/02.2015.

¶43

The workman participated in the inquiry proceedings. The charge leveled against her was that she had failed to issue tickets and collect requisite fare from a group of three passengers who boarded the bus at Chitradurga and were traveling upto Sirigere Cross. The workman attempted to contend that the passengers boarded the bus at Ballekatte and

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:51290 WP No. 14367 of 2024

¶45

before she could issue the tickets, the checking officials inspected the bus. The explanation offered by the workman is contrary to the documents i.e., Penalty Receipt (Ex.M.2), Offence Memo (Ex.M.1). The penalty receipt and the offence memo clearly establish that she had failed to issue tickets to three passengers and collect requisite fare of Rs.20/- each from them.

¶46

The Tribunal pardoned the misconduct solely on the ground that the delinquent was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the ticketless passengers. This is untenable. The reason is plain. The law is well settled by the Apex Court in catena of decisions that the order of punishment cannot be setaside, merely on the ground that the statement of the ticketless passengers was not recorded.

¶47

The rule prevailing in the Corporation in the matter of the issue of tickets is “Issue and Start”. The said rule is violated and there is no justification for the respondent not to issue tickets and collect fare. The respondent being a Conductress of the Corporation should discharge her duties diligently and carefully. As a Conductress, her only work is to issue tickets,

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51290 WP No. 14367 of 2024

¶49

collect the fare and account for the same. She is paid salary for this work.

¶50

Furthermore, the Tribunal has also erred in setting aside the minor penalty. This is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to set-aside the minor penalty. The Tribunal could not have been pressed into service the aspect of minor penalty. The Managerial decision to impose a minor penalty is absolute and the same cannot be modified by the Labour Court, unless there is a perversity and victimization. In the present case, there is no perversity and victimization. Hence, setting aside the order of minor punishment is unsustainable in law. For the reasons stated above, the order passed on the domestic inquiry and the award of the Tribunal Court are liable to be set-aside and so, they are set-aside.

¶51

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal on Preliminary Issue and the award dated 07.03.2023 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in I.D.No.324/2016 vide Annexures-F and G are quashed. The order of minor punishment dated 24.01/02.2015 is confirmed.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:51290 WP No. 14367 of 2024

¶54

10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶55

Because of confirmation of order of minor punishment,

¶56

the interim order granted by this Court stands discharged.

¶57

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶58

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71

The Divisional Controller v. Sri.N.S. Sujatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri.N.S. Sujatha

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

Chief General Manager Vs Conciliation Officer Under

The Administrative Officer Vs Appellate Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner

Srinivasa Wine Stores Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Smt B R Savitha Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele)

Smt N B Leelavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramishetty Srinivasulu Vs Principal Secretary