Allowed

The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority v. Sri K Chandrashekar

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024WP/28222/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal Award that set aside a minor penalty imposed on a bus conductor for issuance of unpunched tickets. The Court held the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to modify the minor penalty once misconduct was proved, and set aside the Award, confirming the penalty.

What did the court decide?

The Award dated 30.03.2023 of the Industrial Tribunal is set aside. The order of minor punishment dated 05.01.2013 is confirmed. The writ petition is allowed.

The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50644 WP No. 28222 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 28222 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BMTC, WEST DIVISION, SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 027. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, SRI. VENKATESH.T., BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY.T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High

¶12

Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI.K.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KSRTC AND BMTC UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION, NO.23, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BENGALURU-54.

¶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:50644 WP No. 28222 of 2023

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶22

An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 22.01.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶23

2. The short facts are these:

¶24

The respondent was working as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 03.04.2008, he was on duty on the bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing No.1399 that was plying on the route No.79B from Jalahalli Cross to Shivaji Nagar. The checking staff intercepted the bus and found that there were 30+15 passengers traveling in the bus. During the course of checking, it was noticed that the respondent had issued 8 tickets worth of Rs.3/- each without punching. Thereafter the checking staff issued the offence memo to which respondent refused to sign and the checking

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:50644 WP No. 28222 of 2023

¶27

staff tried to get the endorsement of the driver, at that point, the respondent insisted the driver not to make signature and caused threat. However, later the driver submitted his explanation. The checking staff submitted a detail report to the Disciplinary Authority. Based on the report, Articles of charge were issued along with imputation of statement, list of witnesses and documents. To the Article of charge, the respondent submitted explanation denying the charges, requested to close the case, but admitted certain tickets are not punched. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and on appreciation of records submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved except one charge regarding the threat given to the checking staff. The petitioner was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. He submitted his reply. Taking note of the material on record, the disciplinary authority passed an order of minor punishment on 05.01.2013 reducing one annual increment with cumulative effect and treated the period of suspension as not on duty.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:50644 WP No. 28222 of 2023

¶30

Aggrieved by the order of minor punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same came to be rejected. He raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.222/2015 for adjudication. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Tribunal vide award dated 30.03.2023 set-aside the order of minor punishment. This award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard, the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶32

Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Tribunal has erred in modifying the minor penalty.

¶33

The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal requires interference.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:50644 WP No. 28222 of 2023

¶36

The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around a narrow compass. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct i.e., issuance of un-punched tickets to eight passengers. The workman had admitted that certain tickets were not punched by him. It is pivotal to note that the Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. However, the Tribunal concludes that the inquiry officer and the Appellate Authority has mechanically passed the order of minor punishment. This is incorrect. The law is settled that once the domestic inquiry was held to be fair and proper, there is no scope for interfering with the order of the disciplinary authority or review the order. The Tribunal failed to notice that the charge of pilferage was proved. Once the charge of pilferage is proved, the Tribunal has no revisional power to review the disciplinary order.

¶37

The law is settled that once the charge is proved and the act of misconduct is upheld, what is required to be considered is victimization. In the present case, there is no victimization and perversity. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in modifying the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:50644 WP No. 28222 of 2023

¶40

minor penalty. This modification is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to modify the minor penalty. The Tribunal could not have been pressed into service the aspect of minor penalty. The Managerial decision to impose minor penalty is absolute and the same cannot be modified by the Tribunal. Hence, the modification of the order of minor punishment is unsustainable in law. For the reasons stated above, the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶41

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru I.D.No.222/2015 vide Annexure-A is set-aside. The order of minor punishment dated:05.01.2013 is confirmed.

¶42

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶43

Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted by this Court, if any stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of.

¶44

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶45

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority v. Sri K Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority v. Sri K Chandrashekar

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

Dr Divya Kumari C T Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Govindappa

C O Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S B Mahesha Vs the Divisional Controller

C L Muniraju Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Sri K C Sudarshan Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited