Sri. Channigappa Vs the Director (Security and Vigilance and Environment)

SRI CHANNIGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O GANGAPPA,R/AT II STAGE, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SRI M VISVESWARAYA LAYOUT, HESARGHATTA ROAD, CHIKKABANAVARA, BANGALORE - 560 090.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DIRECTOR (SECURITY AND VIGILANCE AND ENVIRONMENT), BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶14

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶16

(BY SRI B S SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.135/2013. QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DTD 12.11.2021 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.135/2013 AT ANNEXURE-H. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE INCREMENTS OF THE PETITIONER WITH ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY BENEFITS.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:24514 WP No. 9342 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed assailing the award dated 12.11.2021 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. In terms of the said award the reference is rejected. Consequently, the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority of respondent-Corporation is upheld.

¶26

In terms of the said order dated 30.06.2009, the

¶27

Appellate Authority has modified the penalty imposed and instead of deducting two increments with cumulative effect

¶28

as ordered by the disciplinary authority, has imposed the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect.

¶29

Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, the petitioner/workman is before this Court.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was subjected to

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24514 WP No. 9342 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

disciplinary inquiry on the premise that he was negligent in causing the accident which resulted in damage to window glass. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry was not fair and proper and his evidence is not properly considered and the eyewitnesses are not examined to prove the alleged negligence.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the negligence is very much established as there is no dispute that on account of the collision the window glass is damaged. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the fact situation itself is the proof of negligence on the part of the petitioner.

¶35

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

¶36

The order at Annexure - D dated 30.06.2009

¶37

would reveal that the enquiry was initiated after issuing a charge sheet and it is alleged that the petitioner negligently

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24514 WP No. 9342 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

tried overtaking the vehicle from the left side and caused the accident.

¶41

The Inquiry Officer has concluded that the

¶42

accident would not have happened, if the petitioner had taken precaution and maintained safe distance from the Volvo vehicle belonging to the Corporation and thereafter, has imposed the penalty by withholding two increments with cumulative effect.

¶43

From the said order, it is noticed that the Authority has concluded that the petitioner is responsible for the accident based on some surmises. The finding is not based on any evidence.

¶44

It is not the case of the disciplinary authority that the eye witness's statement has proved the negligence on the part of the petitioner.

¶45

The order of the Appellate Authority also does not refer to any statement of the eye witnesses or any evidence of the persons who has seen the accident. The First

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24514 WP No. 9342 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Appellate Authority has also concluded that the petitioner is responsible for the accident on the basis of report submitted by the officer.

¶49

The person who is said to have submitted the report is not examined and subjected to cross examination. Under these circumstances, the findings relating to negligence is purely based on hearsay.

¶50

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the finding of the disciplinary enquiry and the First Appellate Authority cannot be sustained.

¶51

Before the Labour Court, the finding is recorded that the disciplinary enquiry is not fair and proper. After recording such a finding, the parties have again led evidence. The Labour Court records a finding that the window glass of one of the vehicles is broken. Before the Tribunal, evidence of the custodian of the records is led. Evidence of the person who has seen the accident is not led. Merely based on the location of the two parked vehicles, the

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24514 WP No. 9342 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. This Court is of the view that the findings is also perverse and is not based on any evidence.

¶55

Accordingly, the impugned award has to be set-aside.

¶56

15. Hence the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Writ Petition is Allowed .

¶59

(ii) The order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.135/2013 is set-aside.

¶60

(iii) The respondent-Corporation shall pay the