The Chief Traffic Manager Bmtc Vs Sri Suresha E

SRI. SURESHA E., AGED MAJOR, CONDUCTOR, T.NO.9904, K.S.R.T.C., 13TH DEPOT, C/O. GENERAL SECRETARY, K.S.R.T.C., AND B.M.T.C., UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION, NO.23, 5TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)

¶14

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

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:32618 WP No. 7819 of 2022

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.L.Shekar., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶21

2. The short facts are these:

¶22

The respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On the 34C route, while conducting the bus, the vehicle was intercepted by the Checking Staff at Stage No.2, Hosakerihalli, at about 17:00 hours (05:00 p.m.). Upon inspection, the Checking Staff noticed that the respondent had an excess cash amounting to Rs.178/-, which was inconsistent with the tickets issued and the personal cash declared. An offence memo was issued to the respondent, which he duly acknowledged. The Checking Staff submitted a detailed report to the higher authorities.

¶23

Based on the said report, articles of charge were framed against the respondent, accompanied by a Statement of

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32618 WP No. 7819 of 2022

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

Imputation and a list of witnesses. The respondent submitted his reply; however, the same was found unsatisfactory. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold a departmental inquiry. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who, after conducting a detailed inquiry, submitted a report holding that the charges were proved. Acting upon the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 31.05.2010, imposed the minor penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect.

¶27

The respondent remained silent for nearly two years before raising an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The matter was thereafter referred for adjudication. The Tribunal, upon consideration, held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. Ultimately, by order dated 02.01.2020, the Tribunal set aside the punishment imposed by the Corporation.

¶28

Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation has filed the present writ petition, assailing the award of the Tribunal on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:32618 WP No. 7819 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Counsel for the respective parties advanced their

¶33

submissions.

¶34

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions.

¶35

1. SOUTH INDIAN CASHEW FACTORIES WORKERS UNION VS KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (2006) 5 SCC 201.

¶36

BMTC VS FAKRUDDIN IN W.A.NO.7169/1999 DISPOSED OF ON 15.12.1999.

¶37

The Court has heard the arguments and carefully perused the records.

¶38

The point that requires consideration is whether the Tribunal award requires interference by this court.

¶39

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require repetition. The respondent faced disciplinary action for misconduct, specifically possession of excess cash. The allegation relates to this excess cash. The workman argued that he had received medical treatment and asked his nephew to bring Rs.500/- in cash to buy medicines, which cost Rs.375/-.

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32618 WP No. 7819 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The remaining amount was with him. Before the inquiry, the charges were proved, and the Tribunal found that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. However, the Tribunal pardoned the misconduct solely because the Corporation had not examined the checking officials and the inquiry officer. This is incorrect. When the inquiry is found to be fair and proper, the next consideration is whether there has been any victimization. In the present case, the respondent failed to establish that he did not possess excess cash. Consequently, no victimization is made out. Taking note of this, the Corporation imposed only a minor penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the managerial action.

¶43

It is a settled principle of law that once the charges stand proved, and the management has imposed a minor penalty, the Tribunal cannot exercise its discretionary power to alter or modify such minor penalty.

¶44

For the reasons stated above, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, it is quashed.

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:32618 WP No. 7819 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The writ of certiorari is ordered. The award of the

¶49

Tribunal dated 02.01.2020 in I.D.No.248/2012 is set aside. The punishment order is confirmed.

¶50

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶51

Because of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this court, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications and interim directions, if any, are disposed of.

¶52

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶53

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

The Chief Traffic Manager Bmtc v. Sri Suresha E

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Traffic Manager Bmtc v. Sri Suresha E

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs Smt G Shashikala

M/S Southern Auto Products Vs Bengaluru Karmika Sangha

Smt Mary Philomena @ Amalamma Vs Union Bank of India

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri Syed Asadulla

Sri. D Venkatesha Vs the Chief Accounts Officer and Financial Advisor

Sri Vijaykumar Vs State of Karnataka