Partly allowed

Smt Vidya v. Raikar v the Karnataka State Road and Transport Corporation

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024WP/21389/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition partly, holding that dismissal for accepting a bribe of Rs. 1,000 was disproportionate given the petitioner's clean record and long service. The Court set aside dismissal, ordered reinstatement without back wages, and substituted punishment with denial of increments and loss of gratuity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated without back wages; suspension treated as not on duty; denial of three annual increments; no gratuity under Section 2A of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Smt Vidya v Raikar Vs the Karnataka State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5754 WP No. 21389 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.21389 OF 2022 (S-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. VIDYA V. RAIKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. A.B. HOSAPOOJARI, FORMER DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER (UNDER ORDER OF DISMISSAL) R/AT NO.3649, 4^TH CROSS, B-BLOCK, GAYATRINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 021. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI KARTHIK N., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

THE CHAIRMAN THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD AND TRANSPORT CORPORATION B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027.

¶13

THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5754 WP No. 21389 of 2022

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN ORDER NO.KA.RA.SA.KE.KA.SHISTU.D-625/327:2022-23 DATED 09.07.2022, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 WHICH IS HEREWITH MARKED AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND E1 BEARING NO.KA.RA.SA.KE.KA.SHISTU.D-625/689:2015-16 DATED 11/08/2015 AND ETC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner assails the order passed by respondent

¶20

No.1 dismissing the petitioner from the post of Divisional Mechanical Engineer of the respondent-Corporation.

¶21

Petitioner while working as a Senior Depot

¶22

Manager, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and some other employees, who were involved in demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, charge memo was issued. The petitioner filed writ petition assailing the proceedings initiated by the respondentCorporation mainly on the ground for want of jurisdiction and the authority in law to initiate a trap, writ petition was dismissed with liberty to raise all the contentions including

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:5754 WP No. 21389 of 2022

¶25

of laying of trap before the Disciplinary Authority, which order came to be confirmed in writ appeal.

¶26

The charge sheet was issued stating that the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- from driver-cumconductor for sanctioning leave, and there was an alleged trap and she was caught by the authorities, petitioner was placed under suspension, thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were concluded by imposing penalty of dismissal from service. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

¶27

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred Writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.44712/2016, the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to reconsider each of the contentions raised by the petitioner and pass a speaking order. On remand, the Appellate

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:5754 WP No. 21389 of 2022

¶30

Authority, held that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed the order of dismissal and rejected the appeal.

¶31

Heard Sri N. Karthik, learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioner and Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the respondent.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶34

contend that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed and the punishment imposed on similarly placed persons who were trapped and found guilty of accepting the bribe amount of more than the denominations of the petitioner, minor punishment has been imposed and placed reliance on the orders in cases of similarly placed persons at Annexures– “F, “G”, “H” and “J”. Learned counsel would contend that the dismissal by the respondent-Corporation is clear violation of KSRTC Servants (Conduct and Discipline)

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:5754 WP No. 21389 of 2022

¶37

Regulations, 1971 (‘C & D Regulations’ for short) and is against the principles of natural justice, where it violates the doctrine of proportionality for a minor offence alleged against the petitioner which also “trapped” illegally was awarded with major punishment of dismissal from service and the impugned order is detrimental to the rights and interest of the petitioner.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶39

would justify the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority and would contend that Board having considered the issues passed the resolution dated 21.06.2016 in exercise of the power vested under Regulation 34(2)(c)(i) of C & D Regulations. It is also contended that the Standing Orders 10/1983 dated 18.08.1983 specifies duties and responsibilities of Security Officers of the Central Office/Unit heads and the functions of the Security Officers to assist the management to weed out the undesirable, dishonest and corrupt officials by detecting the case based on the

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5754 WP No. 21389 of 2022

¶41

complaints, source of information and intelligence received. The act of the Security Officers within the parameter of their functions and the disciplinary order is not narrated to interfere. Learned counsel contends that the power of the Security and Vigilance Department to trap the delinquent is very much available and the same is no more res integra in light of the decision in the case of Smt. Vidya Raikar and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Transport, rep., by its Principal Secretary and Others¹ .

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶43

parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:

¶44

“Whether the order of the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the appellate authority insofar as imposing punishment of dismissal warrants interference by this Court?”

¶45

It is settled law that the extending the doctrine

¶46

of parity, equity clause under Article 14 of the Constitution

¶47

1 2016(3) KAR 776

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:5754 WP No. 21389 of 2022

¶50

of India which is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner, benefits extended to some person in an irregular manner cannot be claimed by another on plea of equity, so also a wrong order or judgment passed in favour of one person would not entitle others to claim benefit. It is also settled proposition of law that action taken must be shockingly disproportionate to the consciousness of the Court. This Court is well aware and conscious that a negative benefit given to similarly placed persons cannot be a parity to be considered, however, the imposition of punishment by the respondentCorporation dismissing the workman from service, which would ordinarily be disqualification of future employment is a major punishment for the offence conducted.

¶51

This Court is also aware that a rupee or a thousand is not the criteria, but it is mental state of a person, who has committed the offence. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been found with any past prior misconduct and this is of the first of its kind. However, an

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:5754 WP No. 21389 of 2022

¶53

opportunity to mend her way needs to be accorded to the petitioner as she has been having 24 years of service having rendered before attaining superannuation and it is also necessary to see that vindictive punishment maliciously imposed cannot be exercised by the Corporation and point framed for consideration is answered accordingly, holding the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate and warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶56

(ii) The impugned order of dismissal imposing punishment of dismissal is set aside , respondent – Corporation to reinstate the petitioner without backwages, the period of suspension till reinstatement to be treated as not on duty.

¶57