Mr. Inayat Bagban Vs the Managing Director

MR. INAYAT BAGBAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI.IMAM SAHEB BAGWAN, WORKING AS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KEMPEGOWDA BUS STATION, SUBASHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT MANJULA KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAIK V S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, KALABURAGI-585 102

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19884 WP No. 54758 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS PERTAINING TO ANNEX-C & E AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD.14.2.2014 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEX-C AND ORDER DTD.24.3.2015 PASSED BY THE R- 1 VIDE ANNEX-E AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE PAY OF THE PETITIONER TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE IMPUGNED PUNISHMENT ORDER AND WITH FURTHER DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY ARREARS OF SALARY AND ALL OTHER BENEFITS.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed assailing the order dated

¶25

14.02.2014 marked at Annexure-C and order dated 24.03.2015 marked at Annexure-E. In terms of the order dated 14.02.2014, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty on the petitioner by withholding one annual increment for three months without cumulative effect. In terms of order at Annexure-E, the Appeal filed by the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19884 WP No. 54758 of 2016

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

petitioner/delinquent employee is dismissed and order of the Disciplinary Authority is confirmed.

¶29

The charge memo produced along with the writ petition disclose that there were three specific charges against the petitioner. The charge No.1 refers to the news paper publication dated 06.12.2013, wherein it is stated that in Jevargi new bus stand, the buses are not parked on the designated platforms and thus caused inconvenience to the passengers. The charge No.2 in the charge memo is in respect of the failure on the part of the delinquent employee in not taking appropriate action against the subordinate employees who have failed to keep cleanliness of the bus stand in Jevargi. The charge No.3 is relating to dereliction of duty on the part of the delinquent employee.

¶30

In terms of the reply dated 07.02.2014, the delinquent employee has taken a contention that newspaper publication is incorrect and one day the bus could not be parked on a particular platform because many buses came to the bus stand on that particular date

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19884 WP No. 54758 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

and there was no space in the designated platform where the bus was required to be parked. As far as cleanliness to be maintained in the premises, the delinquent employee contends that necessary instructions are issued to all the employees and necessary steps are taken to ensure cleanliness in the bus stand and the activity is supervised. And thereafter to the charge relating to dereliction of duty, the delinquent employee has replied stating that he has been discharging his duty diligently.

¶34

After receipt of the afore mentioned reply, the Disciplinary Authority without conducting any further enquiry has imposed the penalty as above. As noticed, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such procedure is not contemplated in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 ('Regulations 1971' for short). It is the further contention that there is no admission of any guilt on the part of the petitioner as such

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19884 WP No. 54758 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the enquiry was very much required and penalty imposed without holding enquiry violates the principles of natural justice and the Regulations, 1971.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶40

respondent/Corporation submits that in the reply given by the petitioner, he has not denied the charges and on the other hand, he has admitted the charges levelled against him and this being the position, there was no need to hold any enquiry.

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation

¶42

in addition would also refer to Regulation 24 of the Regulations 1971 to contend that summary procedure can be initiated to impose minor penalty in certain cases and minor penalty has been imposed in this case and the procedure contemplated under Regulation 24 of the Regulations, 1971 is followed.

¶43

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19884 WP No. 54758 of 2016

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

As far as charge No.1 relating to non parking of

¶47

KSRTC buses on a particular platform in Jevargi bus stand is concerned, the petitioner has replied stating that on one such date, the incident has taken place because too many buses came at a same time and the platform designated for the particular bus was not available for parking the bus in that particular platform. Thus, he has not admitted the charges and provided an explanation. As far as charge No.2 relating to maintenance of the KSRTC bus stand premises is concerned, it is stated that he has given necessary instructions to the concerned officials to ensure cleanliness in the bus stand premises. As far as charge No.3 dereliction of duty is concerned, it is completely denied by the petitioner.

¶48

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that reply furnished by the petitioner cannot be construed as an admission of charges levelled against him.

¶49

Coming to Regulation 24 of Regulations, 1971 it is noticed that summary proceedings can be initiated only

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19884 WP No. 54758 of 2016

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

in those circumstances where the Corporation servant is caught red-handed having committed or while committing any act of misconduct or misbehaviour. After going through the charge memo and the reply, this Court is of the view that the case does not fall under Regulation 24 to dispense with the full fledged enquiry and proceed with summary enquiry.

¶53

For the afore mentioned reasons, this Court is

¶54

of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for not having complied the principles of natural justice and the requirement under Regulations, 1971. Hence the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56