Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs Sri Ravindra on 29 March, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
WP No. 49447 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.49447 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE SADANA,
GULBARGA.
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA ROAD,
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICES, SARIGE SADANA,
GULBARGA-585 101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NORTH EASTERN KARNATAKA ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOPPAL DIVISION,
KOPPAL-583 231.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
GURURAJ D AND:
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 1. SRI. RAVINDRA,
AGE:MAJOR,
C/O Y. JAYARAJ, ADVOCATE,
APMC DEPOT, NO.12,
KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT -583 231.
2. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA N. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
WP No. 49447 of 2018
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION, THE R-2 HEREIN PERTAINING TO
CASE NO.433/2016 (DOURJANYA) AND CASE NO.146/2016
(DOURJANYA) WHICH HAS CULMINATED IN THE ORDER DATED
1.6.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2018
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION, R-2 HEREIN IN CASE NO.
433/2016 (DOURJANYA) AND CASE NO.146/2016 (DOURJANYA)
VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Challenging impugned direction issued by respondent no.2 - State Commission in it's recommendation dated 01.06.2018 in Case nos.433/2016 and 146/2016 at Annexure- F, this petition is filed.
2. Sri B.S. Shrinivas advocate for Sri. B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ('NEKRTC' for short) is one of Corporations constituted under Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Service conditions of it's employees are governed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1971 (hereinafter 'C&D Regulations').
-3-WP No. 49447 of 2018
3. It is stated that respondent no.1 while working as conductor at Koppal division, filed complaint of misbehavior and high-handed action against one Sri. K. Tejanaik. Investigation report of Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer, NEKRTC Bellary, dated 31.10.2009 found that Tejanaik Assistant Traffic Manager, Hospete bus stand had discharged his duties as entrusted and respondent no.1 had misunderstood said officer and filed complaint.
4. On basis of above report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent no.1 beginning with issuance of Articles of Charge dated 18.06.2011 and culminating in order of punishment dated 30.10.2015 passed by petitioner no.2 - disciplinary authority directing withholding of one annual increment for two years without cumulative effect. In appeal filed against said order before petitioner no.1, order of punishment was modified directing deduction of Rs.3,000/- from salary of respondent no.1 in three installments. Said order attained finality.
5. On other hand, respondent no.1 filed two complaints dated 23.07.2015 and 29.07.2015 before respondent no.2 -State Commission which were registered as -4- WP No. 49447 of 2018 case nos.146 and 443 /2016 respectively. In said complaints, there was allegation of harassment of dalit worker by Sri. Basavarao, Divisional Controller, Koppal Division, by arraying petitioners herein as respondents.
6. On entering appearance, they filed statement of objections. Without considering same, respondent no.2 proceeded to issue impugned directions which were beyond its powers under the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Commission Act' for short). Relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of All Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees' Welfare Association Vs. Union of India1, it was submitted that though Commission had powers of Civil Court; its powers did not extend to adjudication issuing directions etc. Therefore, impugned directions were arbitrary and illegal and unsustainable.
7. On other hand, Smt. Manjula N. Kulkarni, advocate appearing for Sri V.S. Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri. C Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to justify impugned direction. 1 1996 (6) SCC 606 -5- WP No. 49447 of 2018
8. Respondent no.1 in his statement of objections, after explaining purpose of constitution of Commission, sought to justify complaint filed by him contending that after due enquiry affording opportunity to both parties and after application of mind arrived at conclusion to issue directions. Therefore, no interference was called for.
9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and record.
10. Admittedly, complaints at Annexures - 'B' and 'C' filed by respondent no.1 before respondent no.2 - State Commission are for taking legal action against Sri. L. Tejanaik and other officials of NEKRTC for causing harassment to him.
11. Said allegations are denied by petitioners in their objections filed at Annexures - 'D' and 'E'.
12. Under impugned directions, Commission claims to have found substance in complaint necessitating issuance of directions: firstly, setting aside order of punishment imposed by petitioner no.1 - disciplinary authority and directing petitioners to consider petitioner's service seniority and grant promotion with financial benefits and also grant protection to -6- WP No. 49447 of 2018 petitioner and his wife etc., and to report action taken/compliance back to Commission.
13. Apparently, said directions are issued in exercise of powers and in performance of functions under Sections 8 and 10 of SC-ST Commission Act, which read as follows:
"Section 8: Functions of Commission: The functions of the Commission shall be as follows:
(a) to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided in the constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government for the welfare and protection of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and;
(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguard of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and to take up such matter with the appropriate authorities;
(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to evaluate the progress of their development in the State.
(d) to make recommendations as to the measures that should be taken by the State for the effective implementation of safeguards and other measurers for the protection, welfare and socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to make report to the State Government annually and at such other time as the Commission may deems fit.
(e) to discharge such other functions in relation to the protection, welfare, development and -7- WP No. 49447 of 2018 advancement of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as may be prescribed.
Provided that if any matter specified in these sections is dealt with by the National commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes established under Article 338 of the Constitution of India the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall cease to have jurisdiction on such matter. Section 10: Powers of Commission: The Commission shall, while investigating any matter under section 8, have all the powers of a Civil Court in trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the followings matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy there of from any court or office;
(e) issuing Commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
14. Careful perusal reveals that Commission under Section 8 of SC/ST Commission Act, was empowered to investigate and examine working of various safeguards provided by law for welfare and protection of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; to inquire about any specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights; and to advise on planning process for socio-economic development of Scheduled Castes -8- WP No. 49447 of 2018 and Scheduled Tribes; to make recommendations or measures to be taken for effecting implementation of safeguards etc.
15. While Section 10 of SC/ST Commission Act, vested Commission with powers of Civil Court, same was only in matters regarding Section 10 (a) to (f), which are not adjudicatory in nature.
16. Firstly, disciplinary proceedings against respondent no.1 culminated in passing of order of punishment under 'C and D regulations' and said order has attained finality. Therefore, it was not open for petitioner to assail them before Commission. In any case, findings given and directions issued would be beyond scope of powers and functions of Commission especially as its role is limited to making recommendations to government for formulating policies only.
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in of Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another2, it has considered extent of power of State Commission for Women constituted under Section 3 of Orissa State Commission for Women Act, 1993 and after analyzing scheme of Act, it has been held that no power or authority has been conferred to 2 (2010) 8 SCC 633 -9- WP No. 49447 of 2018 State Commission to adjudicate or determine rights of parties. It was held succinctly as under:-
"10. In other words, the State Commission is broadly assigned to take up studies on issues of economic, educational and health care that may help in overall 1 (2010) 8 SCC 633 development of the women of the State; gather statistics concerning offences against women; probe into the complaints relating to atrocities on women, deprivation of women of their rights in respect of minimum wages, basic health, maternity rights, etc. and upon ascertainment of facts take up the matter with the authorities concerned for remedial measures; help women in distress as a friend, philosopher and guide in enforcement of their legal rights. However, no power or authority has been given to the State Commission to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties.
11. Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that once a power has been given to the State Commission to receive complaints including the matter concerning deprivation of women of their rights, it is implied that the State Commission is authorised to decide these complaints. We are afraid, no such implied power can be read into Section 10(1)(d) as suggested by the learned counsel. The provision contained in Section 10(1)(d) is expressly clear that the State Commission may receive complaints in relation to the matters specified therein and on receipt of such complaints take up the matter with the authorities concerned for appropriate remedial measures. The 1993 Act has not entrusted the State Commission with the power to take up the role of a court or an adjudicatory tribunal and determine the rights of the parties. The State Commission is not a tribunal discharging the functions of a judicial character or a court.
13. It clear to us that the legislature has not gone so far as to give jurisdiction to the State Commission to make an order such as the one that has been made. From whatever angle we may examine the validity of the directions given by the
- 10 -WP No. 49447 of 2018
State Commission in its order dated 11-5-2009, it appears to us that the said order was outside the jurisdiction, power or competence of the State Commission. It was an order which the State Commission had no competence to make and, therefore, a void order. The High Court instead of correcting that order went a step further and directed that DNA test of the child as well as the appellant shall be conducted."
18. In State Bank of Patiala vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin3, Hon'ble Apex Court has struck similar proposition of law by crystallizing condensely as under:-
"18. It is evident from the said provisions, that neither the Chief Commissioner nor any Commissioner functioning under the Disabilities Act has power to issue any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other interim directions. The fact that the Disabilities Act clothes them with certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their functions (which include the power to look into complaints), does not enable them to assume the other powers of a civil court which are not vested in them by the provisions of the Disabilities Act."
19. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Bilaspur vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and others4, considered duty of National Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes provided under Article 338(5) of Constitution of India and held that Commission cannot determine/adjudicate caste or tribe status of any particular individual. Relevant extract of report states as under:-
"17. It is evident from Article 338 as it originally stood, that the Commission was constituted to 3 (2010) 4 SCC 368 4 (2011) 10 SCC 357
- 11 -WP No. 49447 of 2018
protect and safeguard the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by ensuring: (i) anti-discrimination, (ii) affirmative action by way of reservation and empowerment, and (iii) redressal of grievances. The duties under clause 5(b) of Article 338 did not extend to either issue of caste/tribe certificate or to revoke or cancel a caste/tribe certificate or to decide upon the validity of the caste certificate. Having regard to sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338, the Commission could no doubt entertain and enquire into any specific complaint about deprivation of any rights and safeguards of Scheduled Tribes. When such a complaint was received, the Commission could enquire into such complaint and give a report to the Central Government or the State Government requiring effective implementation of the safeguards and measures for the protection and welfare and socio-economic development of the Scheduled Tribes. This power to enquire into "deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" did not include the power to enquire into and decide the caste/tribe status of any particular individual. In fact, as there was no effective mechanism to verify the caste/tribe certificates issued to individuals, this Court in Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development 4 directed constitution of scrutiny committees.
23. The contention that there was sufficient material to reach such a conclusion is not relevant. The scope of the duties of the Commission as noticed above, did not involve inquiry or adjudication in regard to the rights of parties or caste status of the parties. The same is the position even under Article 338-A (which was subsequently inserted) providing for a separate Commission for Scheduled Tribes with identical duties. The order of the Commission cannot therefore be sustained. The High Court was justified in setting aside the said order dated 16-10-2001."
- 12 -
WP No. 49447 of 2018
20. Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Lal Chand and Others5, while considering sub-clause (a) of clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution of India held that National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has no adjudicatory power and it can deal with complaint only where complaint relates to a specific incident of depriving a person of rights conferred upon and safeguards provided for persons, who as a class belong to Scheduled Castes. In paragraph 10, Delhi High Court held as under: -
"10. In my view, even an inquiry in terms of sub- clause (b) of clause (5) can be initiated by the Commission only where the complaint relates to a specific incident of depriving a person of the rights conferred upon and safeguards provided for the persons, who as a class belong to Scheduled Castes. It is only such deprivation and not deprivation of any civil right of a person belonging to a Scheduled Castes which can be subject matter of such an enquiry. To take a view that the Commission can inquire into any specific complaint made by a person belonging to a Scheduled Castes irrespective of the nature of the complaint, would render the words "with respect to deprivation of the rights and safeguards of the 5 (1996) 6 SCC 606 Scheduled Castes" wholly redundant which certainly could not have been the legislative intent. Had the intention of the Legislature been to entrust the Commission with duty to inquire into any complaint made by a person belonging to a Scheduled Castes, the wording of sub-clause (b) would have been altogether different. The Legislature in that case would have said without any qualification, that it shall be the duty of the Commission to inquire into specific complaints made by Scheduled Castes or a 5 W.P.(C)no.5468/2011 D.D.17.09.2013
- 13 -WP No. 49447 of 2018
person belonging to a Scheduled Castes. There are many rights granted to and safeguards provided only for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, the reservation in public appointments and admissions to educational institutions being such instances. To take a few other examples, if there is a welfare scheme of the State or an instrumentality of the State for the benefit of the members of Scheduled Castes alone, any complaint alleging deprivation of benefit of the said scheme can certainly be inquired into by the Commission. Then, there are reservations made by some instrumentalities of the State in making various allotments such as allotments of plots/flats by Delhi Development Authority and allotment of petrol pumps/LPG outlets by oil marketing companies. Specific complaints with respect to such matters can also be brought to the notice of the Commission and inquired into by it. To take yet another instance if a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste is refused caste certificate by the State, he can make a complaint in this regard to the Commission since such certificates are sought to avail the rights conferred only upon the members of Scheduled Castes. If the State comes out with a scheme to grant financial assistance to the members of the Scheduled Castes, any complaint alleging denial of such benefit can also be brought to the notice of the Commission and enquired into by it. But the disputed issues such as claims of title to a property which, by their nature, involved adjudication by an adjudicatory body cannot be subject matter of an inquiry in terms of sub-clause
(b) even if the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The legal right to a property claimed can be by every citizen, irrespective of whether he belongs to a Scheduled Castes or not and a complaint alleging deprivation of property by State or one of its instrumentalities would certainly not be a matter with respect to deprivation of rights and safeguards of Scheduled Castes alone. ..."
21. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of The Executive Director-cum-Appointing Authority Vs. The
- 14 -
WP No. 49447 of 2018Karnataka State Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Commission & Anr.6, has held that Commission has no adjudicatory jurisdiction.
22. Invocation of jurisdiction of State Commission as also Commission delving into such an enquiry, under above circumstances cannot be justified.
23. Hence, following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned recommendation dated 01.06.2018 in Case nos.433/2016 and 146/2016 at Annexure-F, directions issued by respondent no.1 - Commission is quashed.
iii. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE psg* 6 W.P.no.36193/2016 d.d.19.10.2022