IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, B
DATED THIS THE sth DAY OF OOTOEER, RODS T A
BEFORE
THE HON-;3LE MR.JUsTI(:_E f ,
WRIT PETITION No. QF 20D]91(IgIIsR"rc)
1 KARNATFI-'j1KA--STATE ' "
TRAN_ST?OR_'F .cORPORAT1_ON '
CEN'TRj:LL O'P"'EiTICE._'j$._ "_ _
K H RQELTR ,S}LANTH.I'R_AGAR;
RERBY CH1'L1F"LA'N OFFICER.
2 THE DrvISIONAL"=cONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
4; ' '' TRANSPOR1' CORPORATION
' 3_AN_GALORE_.RURAL DIVISION
BANGALORE.
* .. PETITIONERS
{BY SR1'. -H: IISANJEEV, ADV}
YQRAMAIIRISHNA
"C/O. GENERAL SECRETARY
~ ';KSRTc STAFF AND WORKERS
__ FEDERATION, SHTRROR PARK ROAD
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE -- 20.
RESPONDENT
‘ ii»
Hi
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ART1CLE_;226.’.V&[_j’
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING To—Cp..AI;L.
RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF TIaIE,_INDU.sTRIAL ._
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE PERTAII\iII<i0.yTO.' I.DLNTO. '36/y0s,.,
WHICH HAS CULMINATED IN. IT_$'~.AwARD_"-B.AT13;.Dj
10.4.2008 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURI: A; ANDVAETC. ~
THIS PE"I'I"I'ION COMINO FOR" I9RL.IIEAR,i'IxI–C., THIS = I L'
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: —
An employee While
discharging (lass ~ 1996 in the
bus bearing i}l'35 piying on route
Bangalore committed certain acts
of misconduct with an articles of charge.
Thejcharge one of nonwissue of a ticket and non
'fare of Rs.51/- from out of 72 passengers in
to the articles of charge was one of
denial 'leading to appointing an Enquiry Officer to
co'n"d_uct a domestic enquiry, followed by a report
' holding the Charge proved. The disciplinary authority
issued a Show cause notice and elicited a response from
the employee, culminating in an Order dt. 24.7.1998
M
imposing the punishment of withholding of _
increments, permanently, and to treat v if
suspension as such. The employee
order initiated conciliatior1'«–.._Vproceedings'; 'Aumder the,'
Industrial disputes Act, which
led to a failure reportiliilfolliojiziedh reference of the
industrial of the Govt. of
at Bangalore, for
short was registered as
1D.N¢.ssi,x2¢o5.i':iprlT T"
_ _ 2. Iri*t.l_ie.cl,airn_ petition preferred by the employee
‘:w.*asi..i”icontendedlwthat the order of punishment was
cal.l.ed ‘qLueVsi’tion in an appeal before the Appellate
Authoritj,T:;u’nder the KSRTC [conduct and Disciplinary]
Regulations, 1971 and as the Appellate authority did
2ri’ot..hear the appeal, the employee was constrained to
-«initiate conciliation proceedings which ended in a
failure, and that the imposition of punishment was
disproportionate to the proved act of misconduct,.’ _
and illegal. The petitioner arraigned 2
in the said proceeding before Trib.1jina1,.’ ~r’esisted__ tiie
claim by filing a counter or:”V_I2_..9.22()-{)6 see”r§ing”t.o justify *
the imposition of the in the
premise of pleadings’ ‘4 an additional
issue as to Whéthér held against
the parties entered
trial one T.Naga Naik,
as MW–1, and did not
produce or~«.Vm’a1fk~,any’ documents as exhibits, While the
WheVn”v—–examined as WW~»1 marked 15
to W15. The Tribunal having
regard to }:material on record answered the additional
issue”in:’1the negative by order dt. 28.8.2007 i.e. that the
enquiry held was not fair and proper. The
,,._l3’ibuna1 extended an opportunity to the petitioner to
adduee evidence to establish the charge before it, and
though the proceeding was adjourned on five dates of
hearing commencing from 19.9.2007 to 6.2.2008, the
petitioner did not avaii of the opportunity to adduce
evidence. So also, the employee too did not
evidence and as a consequence, the Tribuna]tciose:d*~tiY1’e
evidence by order dt. 18.3.2008′–a.nd–‘_:u
proceedings for arguments.
extended an opportunity “o;f””»-ihearii1.g’ ‘”dates,”‘
nevertheless, as theie was’mn’o:’jrepresentation for the
petitioner, passed thetaivard Annexure-A
setting aside 24.7.1998 and directing the
petitioneir-.to-restore monetary and service benefits
v to’:gtheE ernp1oyee.« …Hence this writ petition.
petit1oner–Corporation is a mammoth
organi.sation having in its fold Iarge number of
eeemployees in a hierarchy of positions commencing from
t”-a’Peon to its Chairrnan, with an establishment known
“as ‘Law Department’. It was the duty of each and every
officer responsible and accountable in the petitioner-
N
‘K
Corporation to ensure that legal proceedings before
courts are handled with utmost care, caution,
circumspection and responsibility. it was also”
of the officers responsible to place
before the courts in support””ol””«the’..A lioffkthe
corporation, when called in question. the’.
case, the petitioner neither.:pl.aced’— rele\_}’:3nt.brnateria.ll’
relating to the industrial justified its order
imposing the punishrnent_Von”thle Though the
reference ‘of’the’:Vdirspute_:ik:as”made on 31.1.2005 and the
petitioner’*-tiledfitslcounter on l2.9.2006 on the basis of
tlie3″«:reco’rds a\}ajla_ble, Very strangely did not produce the
=recorrds* before the Tribunal. No reasons were
for not producing the records in the said
proceedings. There was no responsible officer who
~apj’peared before the Tribunal to substantiate the
___reasons for not producing the records. In short,
negligence and inaction cannot but be attributed to the
Officers responsible in the said case. The inaction on
M
the part of the officers of the respondenbcorporation led
to the award impugned.
4. In the aforesaid factual matrix what _
that the petitioner–corporation took_no pair1s::and:e’fforts”‘~
to justify the order imposing the;’_’pu’nishrnent;Viwhiclgl
was the subject matter ofllt_h’eV_Industrial
respondent–Corporati.on is _pub’lic enterprise serving
the public and therefore,”ae.cbuntab}eV:ltoV public monies.
The monies by engaging
officers}\§vho’ and not accountable
leading. to spending huge sums of monies towards
,A ‘litigation .4ex.penses, smacks of the nature of business
E§y”‘.the petitioner–Corporation. There is not
onlgrpwastalge of public money but also public time. The
filing of this petition without any valid and tenable
A”‘groi.1nds is yet another case of wastage of public time
‘and money. The Authority seem to be blind to the fact
that without a valid and tenable ground in law ought
lfi.
not to have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
questioning the impugned award.
In the facts and circumstanicesdi of”-tiliieg
exception can be taken to reéisons, and”
conclusions arrived by,i’t1*ie._:’Trib}1na1.”inthe order
impugned.
{The _W”rii;_-vp_eiitiondis__rneIfi.t1ess and is rejected.
….. .. . EQDGE
.1’11..’A