IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE I-4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
PRESENT _ I 'V
TKE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcEmIr.G.sA.EI§AIIIT[j I
AND .. _ A
Tm: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTI_QE E;I_}_;'NAGA.I%ATIINA'; 1'
WRIT APPEAL NO. 42'}'o_"1I= 2010" (I,-I§sRT<;)
Agw _
MISC. '9i_[;'_~_NO._'_ 1593 2010
BETWEEN
SR1 s. GOVINDARAJU;
s/o M. SANDAPPA.' 1
AGED ABQUT"50A1--¥EAF-S-...A
R/ATNO.138._f/'2, ' ~
3RD CROSS,"'AKKI1;II11\1NL4;NA:-IALL1.;
BANGALQREV 560vv.Q27T. ._ -
. 4. V ...APPELLANT
{BY SR1 K-._sIv.:NIvAsA,.-- 3: M /s. STM AssTs., ADVS..}
* _ 'I'Iv£E§'I),IVISIONAL 'CGNTROLLER
, 1'é'.QW KNoWI\.J_ AS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER.
'BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
.Tf?_ANSPO.R'I'.CORPORATION
BANGALORE »» 560 027
CEI\IT'RAL' <)Fi+'IcE,
ROAD»; SHANTHINAGAR.
. . .RESPONDENT
THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
I}(ARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
‘ » ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.
14770/2007 (L–KSRTC} DATED 20/06/2008.
2
MISC. w IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 or’ THE
LIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF’
569 DAYS IN FILING THE ABOVE APPEAL T0 MEE’1’~=_THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WA A/W MlSC.W COMING
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, sAI»:IHAIIrrA–
DELIVERED TI-IE FOLLOWING:~
JUDGMEN’I§”t”
This appeal is filed by the
in W. P. No.I477o/o7 being-,a:ggrieYed._ by dt. ” A
2031 June 2008, wherein the” Single Jjudge of
this Court has the award
passedtV”by”ethfe Court, Bangalore in
I Referericelbl dismissed the Writ Petition.
‘E’The,Vappel1a~Iit herein was working as
in th’e”respondent — Bangalore Metropolitan
:.4Cor”poration since 1984. While he was
coII._ductVir1g€th:e bus on 25.12.2002 on route No.164/5,
sazne was intercepted by the checking squad at
Circle Stage No.3 and it was found that there
it ygrere irregularities committed by the appellant in respect
it of 3 passengers travelling in a group despite collecting
ixksg
the fare amount of Rs.2 each, he had failed to issue
tickets. The further allegation is that in res.pe_ct.4’_d’of
another group of 3 passengers and one n1ore’:i.ndivifduai… t.
passenger, the appellant had failed.__to ctollectjthe uh’
and did not issue tickets of the
each and that appellant to of ” it
Rs.3/– each and issue,–tickets-‘to. travelling
in a group. Since the ibygthe appellant
was not satisfatwtoijy, was held by
framing chiargjss above said misconduct.
The the charges have
been report to the Disciplinary
Authority a’1id_’the: D’isc’ip1inary Authority accepted the
“vrep’ort of. the Intres’tigation Officer and imposed penalty
of service. Being aggrieved by the said
order of the appellant herein raised Industrial
Reference No.68/2005 on the file of the III
A Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court by
jttdgment and award dt. 21.7.2007 held that the
V charges against the workman had been proved and also
held that the imposition of penalty of dismissal having
regard to the nature of proved misconduct and”””129
default cases prior to the charges in the 2
there was no merit in the Reference and ‘acco’r_idiVngly–…’d_ V’
rejected the Reference. Being
award passed by the Labour’C0urt1″dt. 2g1:,_.’:{‘
appellant herein had preferre.d”W.P.V”l\loI’:.l47Z0}2007
contending that the charge appellant herein
has not been proved Court had not
considered behalf of the
th’ea”eviderIce”:of two passengers who
have paid money and collected
tickets and “t,h’esamAe_ was lost. Under coercion, penalty
‘0 V’ was~Ccdl}ec’tepd frorrfthem and that enquiry was not held
law. The Labour Court ought to
have allovveddl the Reference and ordered reinstatement
Z hackwages. The learned Single Judge after
0′ ‘i.con.sidering the contention of the learned counsel
= …–appearing for the parties, by order dt. 20.6.2008 held
that the evidence adduced by the Management
comprising of four charges against the appellant in the
offence memo at EX.M.1, Unpunched tickets’.-were
seized as per Ex.M.2, penalty receipts were
per Ex.M.3 to 7. The passengers’ statcririenti
recorded as per ‘E3x.M,8, the seiZted'”way*.-_bi;i1
and the checking report is at, ._ It istptrlkfft the ~_
of the petitioner that there i11¥v.Ii11″rb’etween him
and the checking staff. aniount was
received in the presence” p-eti.ti’o_1§.e–r without any
protest and who have paid
the pentaittyeawierett by”t’he petitioner in support
of his case – ,Corporation has not cross
examined the_rr1.,’it is not in dispute that on an earlier
t”-occasion, the petitioner was dismissed from service,
.wh_eich subject matter of adjudication of
referenc~e 1988. The Labour Court has recorded
that pl-t:<jr to that dispute, the petitioner was invoived in
'A.V1_V2/Lttcases. After he was reinstated by the Labour Court
reference No.27/ 1988, he was again involved in 129
cases of misconduct, which is not in dispute. Following
the decisions of the H0n'ble Supreme Court, ._ the
learned Single Judge held that charge had been_.jpr:0V_ed
and penalty of dismissal was justified and .
declined to interfere with the.»~aw4ard'_'H .a:nd:_ ll
dismissed the Writ Petition. Beingtagngfieved
order dt. 20.6.2008 this ep;§ee1 re" £11ed_:byitheveewrit " T'
petitioner on 9.2.201!) .:I'hei7e"i.a 'delay 0f'569~ldays in
filing the Writ appeal has been
filed for the the appeal
supported —
‘lithe learned counsel
appearing lfor’ who vehemently argued
that ;ha’.xting t0 the nature of charge. except in
persdns from whom according to the
Al”1.3spefidefitV__rtieiiey had been collected and ticket had
not””bee:.1:isst2ed and in respect of others it is the case of
Ktheerespbndent that neither fare had been collected nor
.l ticliets are issued. The evidence adduced on behalf of
“the appellant namely Sri Manjunath S/0 Sri
Gurupadappa who was examined as second witness for
the appellant and Sri Nagaraj S/o Sri Venkatar_am:’ailah
who was examined as third witness for ~
would clearly show that they Ru
collected the tickets but had lostdiiitphei
Wherefore, they were con1pe1l,e:’d..V_to p’ay__ “the ” V
evidence of said witnesses has”i’ernained tlncontifoverted
as they have not been the learned
counsel — respondent
herein. It ::tl’iat delay has been
cause as the appellant
was and could not prefer
the appeal if:
We have given careful consideration to the
con*tent.ion’«of”vthe learned Counsel appearing for the
appe-llant a§n_dA’sIscrutinised the material on record.
it The material on record would clearly show
‘ that ‘when the appellant herein was conducting the bus
on 25.12.2002 the bus was intercepted and thereafter,
on the irregularities being found, charges were framed
against him as his explanation was not foiinci:’:tof”g:’l(ievi..
satisfactory, disciplinary enquiry was held. it
pertains to the following:
“a. That, the first party
tickets to three passengers trairellir1’g;V’i’n”a”:
group from Adugoldi Shanthinvagar
despite col1ec’ti_ng “~.ret1i,1.§Site fare of
Rs.2/5 from place
pi
b. hladp neither collected
«:t/ it / one passenger
I traVell’i.n:_gV_ifr.orn::’ BT M Lay out Mayohail
2 import issi__1ed_ to him.
Thati._.the first party had neither collected
tile farewof Rs.4/– from three passengers
from BTM Layout to Mayohall
pd . issued tickets to them.
“That, the first party had neither collected
‘V ii the fare of Rs.3/– from 3 passengers
travelling from Kalayanamantappa to
Mayohall nor issued tickets to them.”
E}
6. The enquiring authority held that the
charges have been proved and the Disciplinary
Authority accepted the report of the _
imposing penalty of dismissal from sei’vi’ce.:”_wand ‘theft “=
appellant herein raised a Dispute
Court, Bangalore which was”-~.numbered Reference -. ”
No.68/2005. The said reference was resisteqf? by the
respondent contending been proved
and the Labot1r::Cour’t:_”ljy’ ¢:}a¢r«..’tttp, 21§7;2o07 held that
charge against. been proved and the
punishments_dismissal”fromservice was also justified
having regard to”tl_’1~e’f’p.rfevio-us conduct of the appellant
as had’ Vbeeri removed from service and later
‘ if “‘–reinstated and therevvere 129 default cases against him
t-.an_dl rej ected the Reference.
/*….l:’ There is no merit in the contention of the
,…..
‘t1.Vea-flied counsel appearing for the appellant that the
~»-evidence of passengers who have been examined by
him, namely, Manjunath, witness No.2 and Nagaraj,
10
Witness No.3 on his behalf has remained
uncontroverted. Their evidence would show’
appellant had issued tickets to them and .
ticket and paid penaiiy under coercion. _Thei15’_’;cVide1’1eeV_ id”
is uncontroverted as they were not eiarained ‘try’ cou§nseii.:
appearing for respondent. W-‘ep4″‘have heel: tvaiEen_;thro€1gh * it
the evidence of said w,itnesses–;VVV:n’a1n–e}y. Maxijunath and
Nagara] and we find theV:e:taini’n.at.1on~in–chief of
Manjunath that 6 tickets on
behalf of the the squad came and
it was found that
the since the checking squad
threatenedt they would be taken to police
‘JV”*-statidn;;’~.they paid”””pena1ty- of Rs.120/~ and obtained
Similarly, the evidence of Nagaraj
wot-dd that though he states that he had
x””‘-__w”purchased tickets from the appeilaiat herein, the same
test in transit and he had to pay penalty of Rs.60/~
d the checking squad as per 34.0.2. The very fact that
the said witnesses have not been cross examined would
we
11
not in any way affect the evidence adduced by the
workman to disprove the charge as evidence
the eXamination–in–chief itself is inconsisitentg.’j=–.xiot._._”‘ .
credibie and worthy of acceptar_1;ce__to prob”ah_a}is’ev”theE “‘
case of the appellant herein. Wherefore, having
to the concurrent finding ofO.ti1.e -‘the = O’
Learned Single Judge. thatVAp_.thje.._chargesvagainst the
appellant have been any error or
iliegality in thetsaid the charges
against the So far as the
penaityvdofv having regard to the
proved and the decisions of the
Honble stfpreme. ‘.’«Cevu1?t” in the Case of DEVENDRA
V’ :vs–. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
_;f’eported in (2002) 9 sec 544, in the case of
OAMANAGER, RAJASTWW STATE ROAD
CORPORATION vs. SOHAN LAL reported in
8 sec 218, in the case of DIVISIONAL
L’ WCONTROLLER, KSRTC {NWKRTC) vs. Arr. MANE reported in
2005 see [L 81 s) 407 and in the case of DIVISIONAL
F\
keys
12
CONTROLLER. NEKRTC VS. H. AMARESH reported in
(2006) 6 sec 187, and the fact that the learned
Judge upheld that the order penalty .
accordingly, We hold that the _ord_er ll’
learned Single Judge is justified.&ari_d*~
from any error or illegality cal1″foIvintverfe_rence in * it
this appeal.
8. Evert V’ clear from the
averments there is a delay
of which has not been
explained: ‘sufficient cause though
according to”the»aV’eri’nefits made in the affidavit filed in
tpthelllalpplication that the appellant Was
chickengunya, Medical Certificate to that
effect ftirnished and the cause for delay of 569
l.u””–__VV”days has: not been substantiated, apart from making
serving statement which is not substantiated.
l sufficient cause is made out for the inordinate delay.
13
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed on iimitation and also H
on merits.
V~}udqeddQdd);”
T’
BNS