rm THE HIGH coumj' OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE j
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY 0:2 JUNE , 20:15" ' '
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE s.ABD:1L...feAz$gé'-
W.P.No 50215 OF 2m4_(L-KSRTC) V *
1 BHEEMANNA EX-CONDUCTQ_F?'~ " -.
S/0 SHAp;KRAppA,_;\«{pf_ '- 49
R/O JANATA COLONY' - '
BIDAR "
PETITIONER
(53: 3:3 . '5.a,sAjV:AR'A;}vvKAR'EDDY--ADv. )
- f:fH'E&DEiig1.« "cQNTRO'I.1.ER NEKRTC
» ;3IDAR»_!_)I~'ff'a'..
BJ_DA R-,
RESPONDENT
.. : KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF -ADV. J
IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
IMPUGNEE ORDER 01:’ LABOUR comm’ DT. 19.4.2904
V}.DE”ANN!f}X.I:3. AND ALSO ‘I’fi!:.3 ORDER OF ‘l’Hi!}
5 RESPONDENT DT. 6. .1 1.2001 VIBE ANNEXA.
V This pcizifion coming on for hearing this day, the
court manic the fallcswingz
2. I have heard the learned counsei for the parties-
3. Learned counsel for the pefitioner would contegfid, ~
that the Labour Court was not justified in ‘dd
the petitioner has not issued ticksts<–.tp ass"
It is further submitted svssdd[dos;«:sssss1g A
Corporation petitioner has V not
collected {are from it is
not the case of Vfiedfioner has
pilferaged the s A' eizfefiérnstances, the
dismissal e service is highly
dispropo:1:ionateV'to_V {he «oiisconduct.
On other learned counsel for the
res;§o__nd.er1t, evorporsétion has justified the impugned
it h is that the Labour court on
_ _e.p_p1'eeiatioo Afzhe materiai on record has recorded the
'jhat the_peti.t_;ioz1.e_r has aliowed five _ _
§5;{ass$ehgers to IIELVCI the bus: withoot tiekcts
;g,nd_4dwith0ut coiieoting fare from them causing fmancial
'dices to the Corporatio:'1.\NThis is a case of either gross
negligence or dishonesty. Therefore, the court beiow
right in rejecting the application of the peI:i.tior1er,.u–' it .
5. I have carefuliy considered is
made at the Bar and perused rgiatefials
record.
6. As noticed the
petitioner is that itta:s.:>’ctiecked at stage
26 / S, five ‘Were; travelling in the
bus from ‘2’/’ / S and that the
resporzdetity fare from them. The
petitioneé V..1x1oth “examined himself but also
exa:e1ii1ed’a:’w%it12es.s support of his case. It is the ease
the ‘petitionejf? the checking Inspector has forced
~ .ifb.iri:i’~»to receiye the ofience memo and sigzature on the
receipt. It is not the case of the petitioner
Inspector was enimieally disposed towards
The stand of the respondent did not inspire
confidence of the Labour Court. Taking into account the
evidence of the checking Inspector as also the other
‘%
mateflal such as penaity receipts and un–pm’2chce:1»
tickets, the court below has held that the petitiorteifié-afgaifi-?;’»V:.A4
guilty of a11owir1g 5 passengers to travel in
without issuing tickets and without;’ce1Iectjng
them resulting in loss of eevenue to the icorporat.;iO}.”I. ‘ It
is also evident that the 13
cases of misconduct, matter of
charge No.3. Theteply this charge
was that past ~ vcohsideted at the time
of considetihg’ iifibther words, there is
no disputes} of the petitioner in
13 cases ‘of feiating to the period from
I_V”‘2’V’v:i’¢”‘K},’0-1′:-.g.:”:98,.’.”‘-|.’«:O s:s.260{).’*’ ‘
stii-yiiiission of the learned counsel for the
-4 .. _;’:v.pet1t1oner the rule 1ssue and start is not mandatcry
accepted. The said circular issued by the
is not under challenge. The said circuiar is
“b.ii1diI1g on the petitioner. Thus, from the facts stated
3
above, it is evident that the petitioner was either
dishonest or careless or gossly negligent. It is evident
‘it
;_'”Vea. _ Ghtlfl- A ” ”
that if the checking officials had not checked the bliss
the petitioner would have collected the fare ~
passengers were alighting from the bus. In ”
KSRTC vs. B.S.HuHkatt1! 2001(2) see; 574,
court has held Where the
passengers without: tickets’ or at lesser
rate than the proper rsite; interalia
amount either a or gross
negligence Vliifere not fit to be
retained inziction or action on
the part otliziie financial loss to the
Corporatiorz. Irrthe cgisei Regional Manager, KSRTC
V at reported in 2002 (10)
court has held that the act of bus
iv’-…’conduCtor of passengers Without issuing
-«..i’_j’3t§.cl<:ets aniouiits to dishonesty or gross negligence and
Eifor" 'SL_1¢:£1 misconduct punishment of removal from
service was jusfified. Following the aforesaid decisions
Vii'«:..TV"of:~Vthe Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court in
MANAGLRG DIRECTOR, IWRYH EAST KARNBTAKA
ROAD T CORPORAHON VS. IBRAIflM – ILR
l