P Keriyappa vs The Managing Director Ksrtc on 2 November, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

P Keriyappa vs The Managing Director Ksrtc on 2 November, 2018

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                                   1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

                           BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY


         WRIT PETITION NO.8899 OF 2015(L - KSRTC)


BETWEEN:

P. Keriyappa,
S/o Late Parushuramappa,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at Hullathi Village,
Keladi Road, Sagar,
Shimoga District - 577 401.            ... Petitioner

(By Sri. M.C. Basavaraju, Advocate)

And

1.     The Managing Director,
       KSRTC, Central Offices,
       K.H. Road,
       Shanthinagar,
       Bengaluru - 560 027.

2.     The Divisional Controller,
       KSRTC, Davanagere Division,
       Davanagere - 577 401.           ... Respondents

(By Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, Advocate)
                                     2



      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
order dated 21.09.2012 and order dated 28/2-3/2014 passed
by the respondent No.2 vide Annexures-B and D to this writ
petition and etc.,

      This Writ petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following:

                             ORDER

Petitioner has been charge sheeted that 2nd respondent on considering the objection, Annexure-B impugned minor punishment order dated 21.09.2012 has been passed by the 2nd respondent. The reasons for imposition of punishment are that on 01.05.2012 he provoked some employees to participate in strike and at his instance the same appeared in newspapers and that he refused to do interstate route on 15.06.2012.

2. In view of the above the impugned order was issued by exercising power under Rule 18(A) (3) of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct & Discipline) Rules 1971 he was imposed punishment postponed one increment without cumulative affect. Petitioner submits that impugned order is in appropriate since no enquiry was held and petitioner has not 3 been afforded opportunity to have his say. The learned counsel has relied on judgment reported in ILR 1996 Kar 3050 (Ankappa Vs. Management of KSRTC, Bengaluru) and referred to para-3 and submitted there shall be reasons for the dispensation of enquiry as held by this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has to approach avail alternative remedy under the ID Act and secondly the respondent Corporation has dispensed the enquiry which is permissible and therefore no interference is called for.

4. Heard both the counsel. As per Rules reasons have been assigned in the impugned order itself. When it is convinced to respondents that petitioner has committed an act which is contrary to law and then the minor punishment is imposed, which does not mean minor punishment cannot be quashed. When there is a prima facie, misconduct or allegations could be found against the petitioner and secondly there shall be reasons to be given in writing, which are very much there in the impugned order. Under these circumstances Corporation having convinced and assigning 4 reasons minor punishment is imposed. Under these circumstances, having found no reasons, petitions stand dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE LL

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court