IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the Qt?' day Of September, 2010 BEFORE: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V Writ Petition No. 47099 of 2004 A4 BETWEEN SR1 C K RAMAKRISBNA S/O LATE C M KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.711, "rm FLOOR, 'B'--2 BLOCK "TUNGABHADRA", NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA A 5 _ ~ BANGALORE -- 49. " ' * 'L " PETITIONER _ xS1'i«.I»f&I"'I..__SriC1hara Murthy, Adv.] ANI)": ' .. 1. THE KARNATAKASTATE TOURISM ~ 1. DEV1::LOIJM'EN*'r CORPORATION LTO. 'A REP. BY CHAIRMAN ' ?-f"NO".49, 11 FLOOR, WEST SIDE _ KHANEJA BHAVAN O. "v«RACB_C'QURSE ROAD BANG-AEORE ~ 1. THEQMANAGING DIRECTOR ,. ~2.<.S.'1'.1i).C. LTD.. -310.49, 11 FLOOR, WEST SIDE KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE -- 1. RESPONDENTS
{By Sri B L Sanjeev, Adv.]
2
THIS WRIT PETlTIOl\l IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
SAID IMPUGNED ORDERS VIDE ANNEXURE — R AND ‘1″ AS
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, OPPOSED TO ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS BAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOW’Il\lG:
0 R I) E R
Writ petitioner was a person who had.
as a driver by the respondentcorpora/tioniad I
but was conferred with the-..__stat{1s_ of V ov.}1ierof A
vehicle he was driving by enterprising scheme
brought in by the”.Lliiitorpoiftlationgf iljvvhere under, the
corpoijationx the use of two buses in favour
of the petiltionler.Lthozighnhe could drive only one bus, in
theynlaine of tolioperate the buses from Bangalore to
:Al*I9,spetl¥lialnpi-T B Darn as sight seeing services, generate
to keep it with himself, to remit the
9 so collected later to the corporation, as stipulated
int’-theylll letter of undertaking dated 6-9-1999 as per
uA§nnexure–B to the writ petition.
. .,,sut;ees£s’.=
3
2. Be that as it may, fact remains that the petitioner, it
appears, did not remit a single pie for two years during
which period, admittedly, two busses belonging to the
resporident–corporation were in the possession,’:cus_tody
and supervision of the petitioner,
between Bangalore–Hospet–Hainpi–T
corporation, it appears, aiso
commensurate follow up except
benign letters. However,VAy_.wiritirrggA of yylétters was
fruitful to the extent ofi. lakh in favour
of the:’lc’orp’ora.tion:’;Vlbutthaténevertheless left a balance of
Rs 9,6;r’,E’i89/— recovery of this amount, the
c01’I3_”-1f,atiorj1″”had…’–file.df'”a civil suit but without much
it may, on the employment side, the
corpora_.tion.f~” if proceeded against the petitioner for
on his part in embezzling the funds of the
‘corporation, held an enquiry and the inquiring authority
-recorded a finding holding the petitioner of the following
if V it Charges: ”
4
“( 1) he, having been entrusted with the
operating KSTDC bus service between
Bangalore & Hospet together with sight
seeing at Hospet–Hampi-T.i:”5′. Dam
effect from 109.99 on condition of
remittance of revenue to the Corpjora.tio.n 5 ;_.
as stipulated failed to generate some
and committed misconduct in_–v-iol_afion..:of _
rule 4.1 of the KS:’i”D’C”«-Ser:vic_e_ARuIes–,f?
1979 {the Rules) and showed’
devotion to duty in’.__violaiion_-it of ‘
provision of clause (ii), ‘sub-reg}.;{l,l_VV of
Reg.(3} of the C&D. Regulations,
1982, {the Regulai_io’ns};–.._» ” F
(2) he failed to .remit per stipulation the
moneys earned in”theaaboveflmentioned
operation « [fcomrfn..ittei”l .i “an act of
rnisconduet in terr’ns”of~c_lause {b} of rule
_ “‘1’.”‘;1″1’3EA:Q_jf_:J. the: rules -._’ ofgthe Regulations;
(3) -he faiied_ to–.__retu–rn the materials supplied
to Vhiin ‘ivhile”_;~entrusting coaches bearing
u”8gr£;.NO. .KA”-901-9335 and KA–01-9271, &
committed, misconduct in terms of clause
{c} of rule 4.13 of the rules;
‘ ” in.’ failing to perform his duties as per
‘ ‘ –”.”gj—-stipulation in connection with operating
~ _ the bus service, committed misconduct in
terms of clause (1’), rule 4.13 of the rules.”
basis of such findings of the inquiring authority
the discipiinary authority thought it fit to impose the
punishment of dismissal on the petitioner in terms of
5
proceedings dated 13-5-2003 [copy at Annexure~»R to the
s.
writ petition}.
4. Petitioner had pursued the matter by fiplirigf
to the appellate authority, but the appeal.
dismissed as per the order d’
Annexure-T to the writ petition].«dV.V_’hI’t is
action on the part of in
dismissing the petitioner’ frorn the present writ
Petition. V ‘
5. it petitioner, Sri Vijayakumar,
learned several grounds such as the
inquiry pro’ceVedings”i- are not fair or proper; that the
.. «. has not bestowed proper attention
the inquiring officer; that in terms of the
conduct on the part of the petitioner
J’cou_1d.11–ot have been termed as ‘misconduct’ within the
‘rrieaning of Rule 4 of the Conduct Rules; that neither the
“inquiring officer nor the disciplinary authority had an
objective outlook towards the petitioner etc.
%
6. I have heard Sri Vijayakumar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sr: 13 L Sanjeejvt.
counsel for the second respondent.
averments and the statement Z'. respondents.
7. In a matter of this which essfentially an
employermernployee Vrel}”;ti’oi2sl.ii;l5,” ‘*– ‘ ‘petition presented
under Article 226/ of India has
Very for it
8. followed the rules and
procedures terms of employment and the
mere -fact a-civil’- for recovery of balance amount
‘l V. °=0Ver above lakh did not succeed in itself is
mitigating factor to absolve the petitioner
for”‘«haVing.tA«:indulged in the misconduct of misusing the
V. fifllflds of the corporation or even if not misuse in being
_’ careless in not remitting the amount in time to the
sa
9. A person entrusted with a purse is in a position of a
trustee on behalf of the corporation and it is .«his:h”-so1,emn
duty to remit the amount promptly. If iiadfl
faiied in performing this onerousduty andéuwas remission§«
performing the duty and if the :’co’rporatio1i.,AAvtras:
the plight of filing a suit of frorn
the petitioner, there’ iszxno needecito hold the
petitioner guilty of and if the
corporation of termination of
the services cannot be termed as
dispro’p’ortionate: xiii — ‘ ‘ »
10. No”g_:_rotrnd to.’ interfere in exercise of Jurisdiction
undserVArtic1eV.’2£Z6[_2p27 of the Constitution of India. Writ
a petition ‘is’d_isn_1_issed.
Sd/~
Iudge