Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri. Sudhakara Marakala

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE. HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. SUDHAKARA MARAKALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC EMPLOYEES' UNION-INTUC, KSRM TRUST BUILDING, INTUC HOUSE, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, MANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:43237 WP No. 34346 of 2016

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

Sri.V.S.Naik., counsel for the respondent has appeared through video conferencing.

¶25

2. The short facts are these:

¶26

The respondent is a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. On 15.04.2010, he was discharging his duties as a driver in the bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing Registration No.KA-01-F-8444 that was plying on route No.6263. It is said that due to rash and negligent driving, he hit the bus to a road side mud wall and caused injury to the passengers and extensive damages to the bus. Pursuant to a report submitted in that regard by the Assistant Traffic Inspector, KSRTC, Dharmasthala Depot, the disciplinary authority placed the respondent under suspension pending inquiry and issued articles of charge. The respondent submitted his explanation to the same. The explanation offered by him was not satisfactory and convincing, hence the disciplinary

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:43237 WP No. 34346 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

authority decided to conduct an inquiry. The Inquiry Officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and imposed an order of punishment directing to recover Rs.10,344/from the respondent in ten installments and to reduce his basic pay by one incremental stage with cumulative effect vide order dated 15.12.2011.

¶31

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent filed a reference and the same came to be referred to Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.32/2014 for adjudication. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Tribunal vide award dated 08.01.2016 set-aside the order of punishment. The Corporation has assailed the award in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶32

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:43237 WP No. 34346 of 2016

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The point that requires consideration is whether the

¶37

award of the Industrial Tribunal requires interference.

¶38

The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not

¶39

require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of minor punishment. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to setting aside the order of minor punishment.

¶40

Taking note of the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and the material on record, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the charges are not proved and justified in setting aside the order of minor punishment. Hence, I find no grounds to interfere with the award of the Tribunal. Since the Corporation has already recovered the damages of Rs.10,344/from the respondent, the order of recovery stands as it is.

¶41

As the award of the Tribunal is confirmed, the Corporation is directed to take necessary steps to implement the order with regard to restoration of one increment as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶42