Allowed

Sri a S Eshwarappa v. the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2024WP/28368/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A KSRTC driver-cum-conductor dismissed after a fatal bus accident challenged the Labour Court's confirmation of dismissal. The High Court upheld the domestic enquiry's validity but found the Corporation failed to prove rash and negligent driving independently and held dismissal disproportionate, ordering reinstatement without backwages with substituted punishment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Labour Court order set aside; reinstatement without backwages; denial of three increments with cumulative effect; continuity for terminal benefits only.

Sri a S Eshwarappa Vs the Karnataka State… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.28368 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI A.S. ESHWARAPPA S/O. SHIVANANJAPPA, AGED 37 YEARS, EX. DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR, R/AT ANKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI VIKRAM BALAJI B.L., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD

¶10

TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

¶11

CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027.

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANGALORE DIVISION, HAVOOR, MANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2005 IN NO.KARANA:MAMVI:SANCHAR:APAGHATA: 774:2005 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-workman was appointed as a drivercum-conductor in the respondent–Corporation, while on service, when driving the vehicle plying between Dharmasthala and Bangalore, met with an accident, by virtue of the accident, two passengers who were sitting on the left side of the cabin died and three passengers got injured, criminal case was lodged, the department paid compensation to the deceased, enquiry was conducted, a charge sheet was issued, the enquiry officer reported that the charges leveled against the delinquent officer were established, the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the enquiry report and the material placed before it, passed an order of dismissal of the workman from service.

¶22

2. Dispute was raised before the Labour Court, the

¶23

Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the corporation was just and proper and by the impugned order, confirmed the order of dismissal.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶26

Heard Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior

¶27

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

¶28

Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I.A.No.1/2022 filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of prayer needs to be considered.

¶29

I.A.No.1/2022 is filed seeking to amend the following prayer by adding prayer No.(v)

¶30

“(V). Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal on Preliminary issue dated 20.07.2010 and further hold that domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is not in accordance with law and nor in accordance with KSRTC (C and D) Regulations 1971, as amended.”

¶31

The grounds to challenge the preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry held in the favour of the Corporation are that while conducting domestic enquiry, the Regulations 23.16, 23.17 and 23.18 of the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶34

KSRTC (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations have not been followed in light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. K. Srinivasa¹ (K. Srinivasa).

¶35

Learned counsel on both sides have been heard on the application.

¶36

The prayer sought in the application is to assail the order passed by the industrial Tribunal on the preliminary issue dated 20.07.2010. The grounds urged in the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner has contended that the proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority is without following the cardinal principle of natural justice, the prayer sought to be amended does not change the nature and the preliminary issue grounds are already available on record in the pleadings and accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to amend the prayer by adding prayer No.(v).

¶37

1 W.A. No.1205/1981 D.D. 13.08.1982

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶40

In light of the amendment application being allowed, the preliminary issue holding the domestic enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is whether it is in accordance with law and in accordance with the KSRTC (C & D) Regulations, 1971, needs to be looked into.

¶41

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that under Regulation 23.16, once the management evidence is closed, the statement of the workman has to be recorded and it is thereafter under Regulation 23.17, evidence on behalf of the witnesses has to be commenced and that the delinquent can examine himself as a defence witness in support of his case or he can lead evidence in support of his case by examining any witness. Learned senior counsel would contend that after recording the statement, the evidence on behalf of the delinquent has not been commenced in terms of Regulations 23.17 and 23.18 and would contend that the enquiry conducted was not with the KSRTC (C & D) Regulations.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would invite this Court to the evidence of the delinquent at preliminary enquiry marked at Ex.M.6, wherein the delinquent has categorically stated that he has received all the documents pertaining to enquiry and Ex.M.8, wherein the delinquent has specifically stated as under:

¶44

“«ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ D¥Á¢vÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶.

¶45

¥Àæ±Éß1B F ¢£À ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä gÀPÀëuÁvÀäPÀ ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÁ?

¶46

GvÀÛgÀB PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶47

¥Àæ±Éß2B ¤ÃªÉÃ£ÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅ¢zÉAiÀiÁ?

¶48

GvÀÛgÀB E®è.

¶49

¥Àæ±Éß3B «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¸À§ºÀÅzÉÃ?

¶50

GvÀÛgÀB ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¸À§ºÀÅzÀÄ.

¶51

D¥Á¢vÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ gÀPÀëuÁvÀäPÀ ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä 10 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼À PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¶52

ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”

¶53

The perusal of the evidence would indicate that

¶54

the delinquent has no further evidence. Further, learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the order sheet before the Enquiry proceedings to contend that the

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶56

delinquent was given sufficient opportunity to substantiate his contention and the delinquent categorically stated that he has no further evidence. The perusal of Exs.M.6, M.8 and M.9 would clearly indicate that the delinquent represented before the Enquiry Officer stated that he has no further evidence and that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the domestic enquiry after following the cardinal principles of natural justice. The steps generally taken in holding a domestic enquiry are:

¶57

a) Notice of enquiry;

¶58

b) Pleadings;

¶59

c) Representation of parties; d) Evidence and Rules of natural justice.

¶60

The perusal of the material on record would

¶61

indicate that the steps stated above have been complied by the Enquiry Officer and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. The findings recorded by the Labour Court on the preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry does not warrant interference, as the Labour Court, considering all the aspects, has held that the

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶63

domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation is just and proper.

¶64

Now the question that would arise for

¶65

consideration under judicial review is whether the Labour Court was justified in confirming the order of dismissal.

¶66

The perusal of the order of the Labour Court, more particularly paragraph No. 11, would indicate that the reasons assigned by the Labour Court are that the delinquent was driving the bus at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and the act of the delinquent has resulted in the bus hitting the hind portion of the lorry, which was proceeding ahead.

¶67

The charges leveled against the delinquent was that “while on duty in Vehicle No.KA-19-F-1898 plying between Dharmasthala and Bangalore, the delinquent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry No.KA-04-C-5769 resulting in the death of

¶68

two passengers and injuries to ten passengers, besides damage to the vehicle, the Corporation has incurred heavy

¶69

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶70

losses, and the employee has not acted as a responsible driver. The charges framed against the delinquent in charge sheet by the police and the charges framed by the Magistrate are on similar terms. The delinquent was acquitted in C.C. No.347/2004 on the ground that there is no material against the delinquent for having committed the offence and the prosecution has failed to prove that the incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused-petitioner herein.

¶71

The cardinal principle of law is that the acquittal in a criminal trial has no bearing or relevance in the disciplinary proceedings, as the standard of proof in both cases is different and the proceedings operate in different fields with different objectives. Thus, the contention of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner, having been acquitted in a criminal case, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority holding charges and misconduct proved warrant interference and does not appraise the conscious of this Court.

¶72

10 -

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶74

The petitioner-delinquent has specifically stated in his reply to the charge sheet that the circumstances and manner in which the accident has occurred, applying of brake suddenly by the lorry driver ahead of the bus, which made the driver take the bus to the right direction and while doing so, the front portion of the bus dashed against the lorry and damaged and due to the accident, two passengers, who were sitting on the left side of the driver sustained grievous injuries, resulting in death of the passengers. The negligence on part of the driver- delinquent cannot be lost sight, however, it is also to be borne in mind that there is negligence on the part of the lorry driver as well.

¶75

The evidence and material before the Enquiry Officer is categorically that due to the reasons stated supra by the delinquent, the Labour Court goes on the pretext that the bus was at high speed at the time of the collision and perusing the rough sketch as well as the spot mahazar, the Labour Court arrives at a conclusion that the driver of the vehicle had not maintained a distance of about 20 feet from the lorry which was going ahead of the bus. The charges

¶76

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:5724 WP No. 28368 of 2011

¶77

leveled against the delinquent cannot be fully attributable to the delinquent and an order for dismissal of the petitionerdelinquent from service. It is also relevant to note here that the delinquent has categorically stated the manner of occurrence of the accident, on the other hand, the Corporation could not place any evidence, rather any independent evidence, to prove that there was a rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-workman. The disciplinary authority arrived at a conclusion that the charges leveled against the workman are proved in their entirety but fails to consider the specific grounds urged and the material produced by the delinquent. The order of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct attributed to the workman in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

¶78

20. In the said circumstances, the order passed by

¶79

the Labour Court warrants interference and this Court pass the following:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶82