{"id":145548,"date":"2009-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-05T22:04:47","modified_gmt":"2016-09-05T16:34:47","slug":"sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.Gopalagowda And B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
L4IA_l1\u00bbAl--l\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED TI-{ES THE 16'?\" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTICE VGOPALA GOWDATH.\n\nAND\n\nTHE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE B.v_NAGA1\u00a7ATHNga.  A A A\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nMohammed Nizamuddin\nS\/0 Mohammed Ghouse\nAged about 52 years,\nE:-\u00abconductor, KSRTC,  \n\nTumkiair Divisioh _ 2 ' u E'\nShirani'M0ha1ia * \" ~\n\nA': 8: Postasira ' .\nTumkur District. V \n\n1    Sri.K Ravindranath, Adv.)\n\n......_.._..\n\n    $1 The Managing Director\n\nKSRTC, Central Offices,\nK.H.Road, Shanthinagar,\nBanga}0re--560 027.\n\n\ufb02y.\n\nw.A.No.3293\/209:9 (i\u00a7_%'1'e;)'--\u00ab._ .;< . \u00ab\n\n... APPELLANT\n\n\n\n2. The Divisional Controller\nKSRTC. Tumkur Division\n\n- Tumkur. . __\n... \n<\/pre>\n
{By Sri: Ajay G for Sri L Govindraj, Adv.)<\/p>\n
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U \/s  7′
\nKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT P1=zAYiNc3~~*ro1″sE;-‘1: ASIDE’ <\/p>\n
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE Wl?.iT’FE’.TEON _N\u00a2;894iA\/2005
\nDATED O3\/1:2\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
This WA having been  arid.__rcserved~.;forijrders” D<\/p>\n
on this day, NAGARATHNA J. dlellvered the.foll’owing:-
\ng; D ci*iv’iE’N   <\/p>\n
This writ.’ appea.1..,:._is.  ‘lllbilzdistvlze workman by<\/p>\n
challengingAAthie.V\u00ab0r’der”\u00ab;jassed f by the learned single Judge
\nmade mi w4.’Pi.N\u00a2;’89’4{1’\/,\u00e9o–oe dated 3.12.2008.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The relevant’ fa’ctsTof the case are that the appellant<\/p>\n
‘ ‘  . was Vwoi”kir’igA as conductor at the relevant point of time when<\/p>\n
  h.e_  with a charge\ufb01inemo on the ground that while<\/p>\n
he__4wasVc.on’e1d:cting the bus on Benakanakere to Dabbegatta<\/p>\n
 route’; he had not collected fare of Rs. 3\/ — each from five<\/p>\n
I 13\u00a71lss_engers travelling in the bus. The Article of charge was<\/p>\n
  served on 4.6.2003. Subsequently, Enquiry Officer was<\/p>\n
appointed to conduct the enquiry and he gave a report to the<\/p>\n
Disciplinary Authority, which on the basis of the said report<\/p>\n
which had to be continued and hence the said order of the
\nLabour Court did not call for any interference in theagwrit<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
4. As far as the merits of th.e””case is <\/p>\n
learned single Judge held thati   <\/p>\n
employee himself had admittedijto thehvguilt   i<\/p>\n
Court had taken into consideration’–the..gexplanavtion’Ethat was
\ngiven by the appeliantuhelre-in ‘Ex.W.15 and the
\nfact that there_”‘were;”V8l3 * ::)reViovtis vinstances when the<\/p>\n
appellant   –..”sirnilarWoffences, but had<\/p>\n
sufferetilonly  order of dismissal Was
\njust andproper-.and’:_e\u00abthe\u00ab_leari:1ed single Judge concluded that<\/p>\n
there was no p”er1grersAity or error in the order of the Labour<\/p>\n
   ._aceoArding–ly’ dismissed the writ petition_ Being<\/p>\n
 ‘a.gg”i*ieVed”~by. :the said order the petitioner has filed this<\/p>\n
apnea}. V’  ” ‘<\/p>\n
   have heard the learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
—   learned counsel for the respondents.<\/p>\n
6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in the<\/p>\n
instant case both the Labour Court as well as the learned<\/p>\n
$4<\/p>\n
_ 5 _\n<\/p>\n
8. Per contra, counsel for the KSRTC supporting the
\nJudgment of the learned single Judge as well as the award<\/p>\n
made by the Labour Court has submitted that in the face of<\/p>\n
a clear admission of the charges made by the Corporation<\/p>\n
against the appellant there was nothing furtheifillwhicli M<\/p>\n
Enquiry Officer had to do except submitting.    <\/p>\n
the basis of the said report and taking   <\/p>\n
past history, the Corporation was jus”tified in the <\/p>\n
appellant since earlier onlylll’*:r:ii11.eor  were
\nimposed. He therefore,i_4_s’ubmjitsZthattheprder lnade by the
\nlearned single Judge doeslnot for interference and<\/p>\n
hence :thella’ppieal  to ‘ disrnissed.\n<\/p>\n
9. Having. he-\u00abi1′.d”li;h’e.__”counsel on both sides and on<\/p>\n
perusal of’ rnatelrialr’ori;record, the only point that arises<\/p>\n
for’, consideration is Whether the award of the Labour<\/p>\n
l.ACouri;  order of the learned single Judge calls for any<\/p>\n
i.nte_r’fer’eri’ee infthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
10,” Whileganswering the said question the matter has to<\/p>\n
 be looked at from the point of View as to whether there was<\/p>\n
 fairand proper enquiry conducted as well as on the merits of<\/p>\n
5%<\/p>\n
\/4.\n<\/p>\n
the case. Regulation 23 of the KSRTC Service (Contmct &<\/p>\n
Discipline) Regulations, 1971 speaks of proceciii1ie:”p:’–tor’<\/p>\n
imposing major punishment. Clauses 9 & 10  V’<\/p>\n
23 read as follows:    . M
\n“3” the Corporation serg2ant_ who  nq:,_ <\/p>\n
admitted any of the articles. (:f_”cl’i,arge in   [A
\nwritten statement of defence or’..not submitted  ”
\nany written statement of defence,’ ~ appears before
\nthe inquiring authority sach”i.authori!y”shVaIl
\nhim whether he is guilty___or’ any defence to
\nmake and if he pleads guilty’   of the articles
\nof charge, the inquiring autftior-itypjshalel record the
\nplea, sign the record \u00a5.and’*obtai’n._ tl1e.si’g,-nature of
\nthe Corporation serva.n.t’vthereon. V  ”<\/p>\n
 = ‘TheiriiaqairingA_:VV”aathonty shall return a
\njinduing of ,g’uilt. in..y__respect of those articles of
\ncharge to which Corporation servant pleads<\/p>\n
. ~9ui1ty-   =<\/p>\n
 }.’ll_._e.  vbe:”i:noted that in the instant casethe Article of<\/p>\n
Charlge :’.issued on 4.6.2003 and thereafter the Enquiry<\/p>\n
W,Of\ufb01cef ,_nl’as appointed and the enquiry commenced on<\/p>\n
‘t1g.e;7.\ufb01’003. About nine sittings were held till 21.10.2003. On<\/p>\n
  all these days the “delinquent employee namely the appellant<\/p>\n
herein was present. On 21.10.2003 the preliminary hearing<\/p>\n
was conducted and during the course of recording of the<\/p>\n
i\u00bb<\/p>\n
plea, the ernpioyee was asked as to whether he had
\ncommitted the mistake levied against him in the Article of
\nCharge. It is stated at Annexure~C that the delinquent<\/p>\n
employee agreed to have committed the mistake levied:<\/p>\n
Article of Charge and on that basis the  ~<\/p>\n
that the enquiry is completed at __that_ stagellariti.  <\/p>\n
delinquent employee is provided a.117-.chancee\u00a5 to\u00bbde’fendlhi1z1se1If<\/p>\n
in the case. The relevant ‘joortion ‘of xthe o[:re1erv…she.et <\/p>\n
extracted:\n<\/p>\n
V’t””‘Deiin;}ueni,f  and” Apresitiing Qjfficer are
\npresent –for’–“.enquriry.-._ “‘~–.Preiirnina1y hearing is
\nconducted.’ . During.  course of enquiry
\ndelinquent has k1gr’eed to have committed the
\nmistakeiievied in the Articles of Charges. Hence
\ne:;iq’uirfy is completed at this stage. Delinquent is<\/p>\n
._pi**\u00ab9igi\u00a2ie’ci_ with”‘a\u00a3\u00a3…ehances to defence himself in
\n. _ the Case,
\n‘  ‘By; -2’i’;1ge,2o.o3 Sd\/– sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
. V l V Mohd.N&amuddin<\/p>\n
 12″,; * ..Annexure–D is the recording of the piea and question<\/p>\n
  islof\ufb01l and the answer to the same are also extracted from<\/p>\n
   \u00a7’XnnexurewD as follows:\n<\/p>\n
.. 19 1\n<\/p>\n
13. On a consideration of the same it is apparent that on
\nthe said date namely on 21.10.2003 the representative of the
\nCorporation was not present. As it is evident froin the<\/p>\n
recording of the proceedings on 27.9.2003 and 1s4.v1,0′;-2003<\/p>\n
wherein it is stated that reporter was not prese_ntmas” .<\/p>\n
on leave for a period of fifteen daysmwhereas”on.:’_the”~.ear1ie_r <\/p>\n
occasions when the reporter was z_1’0t–5 present  on<\/p>\n
10.9.2003 the enquiry was ‘\u00ab.postp’0r_1ed.V gHew.eyer,.’2 en <\/p>\n
21.10.2003 taking advantage’ the l lreefeeneera of the
\nrepresentative of the Corp:c=rationi–the’ officer was able
\nto extract the adrnissi0n..o_ftg-ui1t._lfroiit”thle’:.appellant. It is in<\/p>\n
the nature ‘of.:iprelinifina1*yjV”p1eapf”admission of charge. We
\nfind that the   plea in the absence of the<\/p>\n
representative ofptlie Corporation is not just and proper and<\/p>\n
  is  in vio1’ati.on\u00ab’of principles of natural justice and<\/p>\n
 ‘tlie’1’eforel;’Vvefjh0_1d that the enquiry was abruptly concluded<\/p>\n
on there was no fair enquiry in the eye of<\/p>\n
 lawazjzd hence the order of the Labour Court as well as the<\/p>\n
 order of the learned single Judge on the question of there<\/p>\n
 a just and fair enquiry is not correct and hence the<\/p>\n
“same has to be reversed.\n<\/p>\n
9;:\n<\/p>\n
Wide<\/p>\n
14. We shall now deal with the merits of the Case. At this
\nstage it is necessary to note that the Labour Court has taken<\/p>\n
into consideration the background of the appellant Varidrthe<\/p>\n
explanation offered at Ex.W.1.5 and particularly   _<\/p>\n
in earlier 83 instances where the appellant     <\/p>\n
similar offences, he had suffered only nainoir p.uniAshr’r1et1t’_ and<\/p>\n
therefore punishment imposed in the”instanttpcasevvwasijust <\/p>\n
and proper according to the  Courtg.   \ufb01nding
\nof the Labour Court  the learned Single
\nJudge. At the first instance it   in respect<\/p>\n
of 83 prior instanees only r;:1ir1or”pu1iishI;1ents gvere imposed.<\/p>\n
Those instantces attire “sirn-ilarf”to””the charge in respect of
\nwhich the present’ ‘was held. When the minor<\/p>\n
punishmernawere imposed \u00abin all those occasions, there is no<\/p>\n
 Speci\u00a7io:__reason ‘assigned as to why the major penalty of<\/p>\n
 ‘dismiss.a;r.pasf”been imposed in theinstant case. What is of<\/p>\n
‘re1;’ava’n{\u00a7e Regulation 25 of the Regulations deals with<\/p>\n
circurnstances to be taken into consideration for imposition<\/p>\n
if V’ of  The same reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Circumstances to be taken into consideration
\nfor imposition of penalttesa Without prejudice to
\nthe provisions of any law for the time being in
\nforce any Corporation servant who is found guilty
\nof any act of misconduct or misbehavior shall be
\nliable to one or more of the penalties specified in
\nRegulation 18 according to the gravity of the<\/p>\n
.\/’-\n<\/p>\n
_  ‘V’V’V\n<\/p>\n
16. Reference has also been made to the case of Manche
\nGowda reported as the State of Mysore Vs. K.Manchegowda,
\nreported in AIR 1964 SC 506, wherein it is held in the<\/p>\n
context of imposition of punishment, reasonable oppoi’t,unity<\/p>\n
has to be given with regard to the delinque_n”t”’emp_lo\u00a7:se’~.A<\/p>\n
having a say on the material that is  the  <\/p>\n
following passage can be squarely j1,sd;:_ti:\u00a2 <\/p>\n
the present case:\n<\/p>\n
“We Acannof'”‘t1::\u00a2epi._T_the’. ., doctrine of
\npresurrzptiuepknowledge or ‘th’at,__of purposeless
\nenquiry;-..as1’l;jtheirv cicceptaneejiviil be subversive of
\nthe principle of refdsonq\u00a39le’–.,Aopportunity. We.
\ntherefore,” hold tho,t*it  incunibent upon the
\nauthority} to  ‘the’ Gove\ufb01iment servant at the
\nsecond ‘s–‘tqg\u00a2’i,rea,sonobie opportunity to show
\ncause cigcLins’i=.pthe_. proposed punishment and if
\nthe ‘proposed ”’punishment is also based on his
\nprevio:is’puni_shmerv:s or his previous bad record,<\/p>\n
j ‘ this shouldlbe included in the second notice so
\n that he may’be..able to give an explanation.”<\/p>\n
 “i_’l’he1’efo1:’e;..in the instant case also it is noted that<\/p>\n
nowhere irfthe charge sheetwhich is produced at Annexure-<\/p>\n
 A dated 50.6.2003 or at any time subsequently, has it been<\/p>\n
A  stated about the previous misconduct and it is only at the<\/p>\n
 of imposing the penalty of dismissal that the same has<\/p>\n
wlheen taken into consideration While dismissing the appellant<\/p>\n
from service, which is not legal and valid in the eye of law.<\/p>\n
\u00e9:\n<\/p>\n
_ 15 _\n<\/p>\n
17. As far as the imposition of penalty of dismissal is
\nconcerned, we find that in the previous instances where
\nsimiiar misconduct had been proved against the appeiiant,<\/p>\n
minor punishment had been imposed. But there <\/p>\n
no speci\ufb01c reasons assigned as to why the   _<\/p>\n
dismissal has been imposed in the instant ca;se\u00bbe:i\u00a7e.ep*tV:ta.i{ing  <\/p>\n
into consideration the past conduct whiichu’co:’t1Id\u00ab. <\/p>\n
been done so in the instant,ca_se foijthe reasons: we have <\/p>\n
assigned above. ._ _ g_ 1\n<\/p>\n
18. The Labour Court.,Iher\u20acfore,i_:’0ught to hvaveiexercised<\/p>\n
its jurisdictionif,under’ of the Industrial Disputes
\nAct, keeping  thedeeision of the Apex Court in the<\/p>\n
case of “ii\/d’oi’Ecrr1:-;_nAof:1\\\/\u00a3,r’is Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of<\/p>\n
 =   Ltd.   Managerrient & Others reported in AIR<\/p>\n
‘ 19T3  and answered the question on the merits of<\/p>\n
ti1e”case  of the workmen, keeping in mind the fact<\/p>\n
 that there Vxhas been disproportionaiity in the order of<\/p>\n
 punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.<\/p>\n
Therefore. the Labour Court in our View had to exercise its<\/p>\n
 “power under Section ii%A of the ID. Act and set aside the<\/p>\n
order of dismissal and ordered re–instate1nent of the<\/p>\n
delinquent workmen. In the decision of K.Giridhar Gowda,<\/p>\n
2;.\n<\/p>\n
.\/’<\/p>\n
__i5_<\/p>\n
referred to supra, the Division Bench of this court upheld<\/p>\n
the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court under Section<\/p>\n
11–A of the Act even in the context of the <\/p>\n
misconduct and held that the Labour Court   V’<\/p>\n
setting aside the order of disrnissalp and <\/p>\n
reinstatement with 35% backwages  yr-*as–..a <\/p>\n
order. Applying the same to thedfacts of  ease we ” V<\/p>\n
find that since we have corr1.e..lto._ a–._.conc1″usion_dthat the
\nenquiry held was not just on the merits<\/p>\n
of the case the imposition oftiie order of disrnissal as penalty<\/p>\n
Was alsoVldvispreoportionateyllto th_el”charges which were levied
\nagainst”-.thg._appellantfbyi’—eigercise of our discretion under<\/p>\n
Section l;i–“A of V we set aside the order of the<\/p>\n
  autho1*it?v\u00abimposing penalty of dismissal of as<\/p>\n
 ‘W.el’1  of the Labour Court and the learned single<\/p>\n
 it  the appellant is directed to be<\/p>\n
 reinstated in service with 35% backwages and continuity in<\/p>\n
A ,  V.sAeI’v”;_ce. \/A;\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
M13…\n<\/p>\n
19. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n
Parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
KVN*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009 Author: V.Gopalagowda And B.V.Nagarathna L4IA_l1\u00bbAl–l IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TI-{ES THE 16′?” DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 PRESENT THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE VGOPALA GOWDATH. AND THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE B.v_NAGA1\u00a7ATHNga. A A A BETWEEN: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-05T16:34:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-05T16:34:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2043,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-05T16:34:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-05T16:34:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-05T16:34:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009"},"wordCount":2043,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009","name":"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-05T16:34:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mohammed-nizamuddin-vs-the-managing-director-k-s-r-t-c-on-16-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Mohammed Nizamuddin vs The Managing Director K S R T C on 16 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145548","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145548"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145548\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}