The Senior Divisional Controller Vs Sri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Senior Divisional Controller Vs Sri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the writ petition was dismissed and the impugned Labour Court award was not interfered with.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Corporation establishes that the charges against the delinquent employee are proved? +1 more

Court's answer

Nothing on record shows that disciplinary enquiry was initiated against S.Y. Manjunath, the person alleged to have received the Rs.35,000/- bribe, and the charge does not indicate that the bribe amount was paid by the delinquent employee.

Ratio / Principle

Nothing on record shows that the delinquent employee was acting as an invigilator on the date of the written test or that he allowed Jattappa to write the examination on behalf of Sharanayya Ivoli Mata; absent any evidence implicating him in the alleged act of impersonation, the Labour Court was justified in allowing the claim petition.

Key takeaways

The petitioner Corporation utterly failed to establish the charges levelled against the delinquent employee.ratio¶52
For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order (the Labour Court award) does not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BMTC (Senior Divisional Controller, East Division) challenged, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, the award dated 26.04.2016 of the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D. No.2/2014, which set aside the 15.07.2013 dismissal of driver-cum-conductor Siddalingappa Jyothi — who died after dismissal — and directed payment of all service benefits and backwages from the date of dismissal till his death. The dismissal rested on charges that he took Rs.35,000/- as bribe and enabled Jattappa to impersonate applicant Sharanayya Ivoli Mata at the written test for driver recruitment, with S.Y. Manjunath and Prakash Biradar said to be involved. Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. held: no disciplinary enquiry was initiated against S.Y. Manjunath, the alleged recipient of the bribe; the charge nowhere indicated that the bribe was paid by the delinquent employee; and nothing on record showed that the delinquent employee acted as invigilator on the written-test date or allowed the impersonation. The Labour Court was therefore justified in allowing the claim, the Corporation having utterly failed to establish the charges; the award called for no interference under Article 227. Writ petition dismissed.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:918 WP No. 63259 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 63259 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, B M T C EAST DIVISION, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, B M T C CENTRAL OFFICES K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI SIDDALINGAPPA JYOTHI, S/O TIPPARAYA JYOTHI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT SUREKHA, W/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA JYOTHI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

MASTER SANTOSH S JYOTHI, S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA JYOTHI, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT SUREKHA, RESIDING AT DINUR POST, BASAVANABAGEWADI TALUK BIJAPUR DISTRICT - 586203.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY MS. REKHA, FOR SRI. KANTHARAJU V, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND REPRESENTED BY R1)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:918 WP No. 63259 of 2016

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE PERTAINING TO ID NO.2/2014 WHICH HAS CULMINATED IN ITS AWARD DTD 26.4.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the award dated 26.04.2016 in I.D. No.2/2014 passed by III Additional Labour Court at Bengaluru. In terms of the said award which is impugned in the present petition, the order dated 15.07.2013 i.e. order of dismissal of first respondent by the employer is set-aside. The petitioner/employer is directed to reinstate the employee. However, as the employee had died by the time the order was passed, direction is issued to pay all service benefits and backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of his death. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the employer is before this Court.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:918 WP No. 63259 of 2016

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the deceased employee was working as a driver-cumconductor. The KSRTC had initiated the recruitment process to recruit the drivers. The deceased employee took Rs.35,000/- as a bribe and allowed one Jattappa to appear for the written examination in place of the candidate Sharanayya Ivoli Mata. It is the case of the petitioner that Jattappa was not the candidate who applied for the post of a driver and Sharanayya had applied for the post of driver. After accepting the bribe of Rs.35,000/-, the delinquent employee ensured that Jattappa who had applied for the post of driver appeared in the written test, and it was noticed when Sharanayya was given the driving test. On the basis of those allegations, the notice was issued to the delinquent employee who denied the charges. Thereafter, the charge memo was issued and disciplinary enquiry was held.

The disciplinary authority found the delinquent employee guilty and dismissed him from service. This

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:918 WP No. 63259 of 2016

order is called in question before the Labour Court by the legal representatives of delinquent employee who had died after the order of the dismissal.

The Labour Court found that the disciplinary

enquiry was improper and allowed the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim. On appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court held that the charges against the delinquent employee were not proved and accordingly, ordered deemed reinstatement with a direction to pay backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of death.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that charges are very much proved from the evidence led on behalf of the employer. Learned counsel would also submit that independent witnesses have been examined to establish the charges against the petitioner and same have been completely overlooked by the Labour Court.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:918 WP No. 63259 of 2016

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

would contend that the charges are not proved. Even the charge would indicate that the amount is paid to one S.Y. Manjunath and delinquent employee has no role to play in written test conducted by the Corporation, as such, entire enquiry as well as the penalty imposed on the delinquent employee are wholly untenable.

This Court has considered the contentions

raised at the bar and perused the records. The following points arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the petitioner Corporation establishes that the charges against the delinquent employee are proved?

(ii) Whether the petitioner Corporation establishes that the Labour Court erred in passing the impugned order by overlooking the material evidence on record?

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:918 WP No. 63259 of 2016

This Court has perused the charges framed against the delinquent employee. The gist of the charge is that one Sharanayya Ivoli Mata had applied for the post of driver-cum-conductor and he approached the delinquent employee who in turn approached one S.Y. Manjunath the employee of the Corporation who insisted Rs.35,000/- as bribe to secure the job. Said amount of Rs.35,000/towards bribe is said to be paid to S.Y. Manjunath on 17.03.2012 and on 18.03.2012, one Jattappa appeared for the written test impersonating himself as Sharanayya Ivoli Mata with the aid of Prakash Biradar who is again said to be the employee of the Corporation. The charges would further indicate that this aspect is noticed at the time of 'driving test' as the signature of Sharanayya Ivoli Mata is found to be forged by Jattappa.

The Labour Court on appreciation of evidence has concluded that evidence of S.Y. Manjunath who is said to have received Rs.35,000/- is not led. The Labour Court has also noticed that the role of the delinquent employee

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:918 WP No. 63259 of 2016

was only to introduce Sharanayya to S.Y. Manjunath and nothing beyond that. On the basis of aforementioned circumstances and evidence led on record, the Labour Court has concluded that the charges against the delinquent employee are not established.

It is submitted that S.Y. Manjunath is an employee of the Corporation. There is nothing on record to show that disciplinary enquiry was initiated against S.Y. Manjunath for having received Rs.35,000/- as the bribe. The charge does not indicate that the bribe amount is paid by the delinquent employee. There is nothing on record to show that the delinquent employee was acting as an invigilator on the date of written test. There is nothing on record to hold that the delinquent employee allowed one Jattappa to write the exam on behalf of Sharanayya Ivoli Mata. Without there being any such evidence to implicate the delinquent employee in the alleged act of impersonation. The Labour Court, is justified in allowing the claim petition. The petitioner Corporation has utterly

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:918 WP No. 63259 of 2016

failed to establish the charges levelled against the delinquent employee.

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31