IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 147" DAY OF' SEPTEMBER, 2{_).._I_'O
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE v.G.SAB;;iAHIT'--' I-
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B:,'V'.§IAC.AI{AI'iIIN}&'--.. '
W.A.N0.1069/2010 (L~TEF?.I_ A.[W 1\IfISC.W.NfCI.346?/2010 . I *
BETWEEN:
SHRI M C SOMASHEKAR' _
AGED 49 YEARS ' A
S / 0 LATE MASTER CHANDRASHVEKARAMII
C /0 H.KRISHNAPPA, 1510.3/'VI, 6THfC.,ROSS
9TH MAIN, SR1RA:MA.pURA;yI' "
BEHIND II-DD:L'@-EIRUPBIYIAV '
BANSALOREQ I A ' .. ' I
«. 1_ = APPELLANT
{By Sri: S If; MUKKAIYNAPPA & ASSTS)
EH12; A
If c:i§IIE1}*'T_RAFFIc MANAGER
{DISCIPLINARY-IAUTHORITY)
A .I3IzITc';'vcEN'rr;IAL OFFICES
K.H';R0AD.'1SI#1ANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 027
.. RESPONDENT
I A THIS W.A. IS FILED U/S 4: OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
'' IN THE WRIT PETITION 264/09 DATED 02 /02/09.
MISC.W.3467/ 10 IS FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT U/ S 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO
CONDONE THE DELAY OF 361 DAYS IN FILING THE
APPEAL.
These Appeal & MISC.W coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, SABHAHIT J, made the following:_i.._ it
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the j{1ns’uc«cessfL1l .p:e»ti_tiVoner in
W.P.No.264/ 2009 being aggrieved tl1exorder”‘the learned,
Single Judge dated 2.2.2009v;.:wherein..thelileariiedfl fiinglel
Judge has declined to interfeire”w.i”t:l1 ‘thee order”pas’sed by the
Addl. Labour Court, 2008 dated
31. 10.2003 anclidismissledt -peti’ti0rl.
2. The Working as conductor and
while vehicle on route No.293–B on
16.l.l§98l,. the it intercepted by the checking
officials and~.itVwas’;.found’*’that the workman was guilty of the
‘~ fol.lolving irregulalriti-es’amounting to misconduct:
it ” _ :llir~st party had neither collected fare nor issued
Rs.2.25 to a passenger travelling from the
Market to Frazer Town.
°:.”l’he first party had reissued one ticket of the
denomination of Rs.2.75 bearing l\}’o.92″/940 to a
passenger who had travelled from City Market to
Lingaragapuram.
c] The first party had kept 21 old tickets of Rs.2.25
denomination and two old tickets of Rs.2.75
denomination with an intention of reissuing the
same. The tickets bearing N0.92790l and 914 of
-3-
Rs.2.”/’5 denomination and tickets bearing Nos.
512816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 869, 870, 871,
872, 873 and 874 of denomination of Rs.2.25 were
in his possession.
The checking inspectors having noticed the same passed
necessary remarks in the way bill and also.–§recoi5ded
statement of passengers in the presence.*of
and confiscated the unpunched, tickets. 3_;Fheyllisisuedrla
memo to the first party under proper ac:eknovv:1edge§me1it.””;
Thereafter they submitted vV}’l’hey also
levied penalty to tl1e_.””ytick.etless” ‘passengers. V Being not
satisfiedlv given by the workman.
disciplinary and the disciplinary authority
held that”the been proved and that he was
ll{i:tf:Ol\f3’3..C1 in 210′”cvas-es out of which 10 cases were red mark
‘ s.cases”,._and”»dismissed the appellant from the services of the
V..5’uBeing aggrieved by the same, the appellant
raileedle dispute in l.l).No.35/2000 on the file of the Third
2 xAddpl. Labour Court. Bangalore. In the Labour Court, the
Aibvvolrkman filed a memo stating that enquiry held by the
H disciplinary authority was fair and proper and Ex.M–1 was
not marked by consent. However, the workman did not
adduce oral evidence. The Tribunal after considering the
\V«2.§:
_5_
material on record would clearly prove the charge against the
workman and even the record discloses that he was involved
in similar 212 default cases against him and he was warned,
suspended and minor punishments were imposed…:.”‘–._T,he
order was justified and accordingly. the leairned”*. ~
declined to interfere with the awar_d…passec_£’ if”
and hence, dismissed the petition.”—_ Being bypfite
same, the petitioner has prefe’rred this’a.ppeal.iij
4. We have heard the leamedlleourisel for ‘theapvpellant.
5. Learned counsel that the
charged a,p’p.ellant– has not been proved in
accordance”With_law.e_fl}£eA”was not given opportunity in the
discipl_inaryfl”‘enVqu.iry andlthat the industrial Tribunal also
“V”«…,heldi:’t1.1e wQrkrnan”””gtii1tY and the enquiry held by the
was fair and proper and he submits
the of the industrial Tribunal has not been
considered by the learned single judge in proper perspective
“the learned single judge ought to have allowed the writ
petition. Hence, the appellant prays that a lenient view may
be taken and the matter may be remitted.
6. We have given careful consideration to the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant and scr’utinise’d.._lthe
material on record.
7. The material on record would clearly shlojvvvtliat
wor1<rnan–appe11ant herein had filed' "a . memo fb'ot'ore'–:Vthe".
Industrial Tribunal stating that the ' held
enquiring authority was fairarid*~._profier._and: 1\'/I-17 it
were marked before th6'.ti'ibuI.18.'1 co-nsenti' 'However, the
appellant did not choose or documentary
evidence. The were taken on
record coris_ent_ tollgarove the charge and in the
absencevnf any 'oralA:_:a_nd~~doctiiiientary evidence adduced by
the appe11a"nt,_VV the contention of the learned counsel
.—.,.._app'ea'I*iiig for the appellant that the charge has not been
_Ap'1'oT\_fed be accepted and the finding of the Industrial
been confirmed by the learned single judge by
referringfto M1 to M17. Also, having regard to the proved
"rnisc'onduct and the fact that he was involved in similar 212
' default cases in his career, the order of dismissal of service
"cannot be said to be disproportionate as the charges of
misconduct are proved and therefore no question of remand
would arise, unless the order passed is set aside on merit for
KJEGQZ;/K
which there is no Valid reason made out and accordingiy, we
hold that the impugned order passed by the learned'
judge does not suffer from any error and V'
appeal is dismissed. Since the _a.p.pea} dd
merits. it is unnecessary to c0ns'ide1:1"'t};ie appi3_eatjo;§"–~.fd'14–..
condonation of delay. _ V . _
ndes3uc19°
V'
S* . . ' . 'I V'