Karnataka High Court
Chandrappa Y vs The Divisional Controller on 7 March, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9530
WP No. 10476 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 10476 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAPPA Y
S/O YOGESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
KSRTC DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR,
R/A ILAPURA VILLAGE,
BAGURU POST, HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRAUDRGA DISTRICT - 577 515.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
Digitally signed KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION,
by A K CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101
CHANDRIKA ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SMT.VINUTHA.K. ADVOCATE FOR SRI.AMIT DESHPANDE.,
COURT OF ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- CALL FOR RECORDS
AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU
IN I.D.A.NO.02/2016 DATED:05.12.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A &
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9530
WP No. 10476 of 2019
ORDER
Petitioner, dismissed Workman is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of Award dated 05.12.2018 in I.D.A.No.2/2016 on the file of the Labour Court at Chikkamagaluru, where-under the petitioner's claim to set aside order of dismissal dated 12.01.2016 is rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Gopalakrishnamurthy.C., for petitioner/Workman and learned counsel Smt.Vinutha.K., for Sri.Amit Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent/Corporation. Perused the writ petition papers as well as the Labour Court records.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner joined the service of respondent/Corporation as Driver-cum-Conductor on 16.05.2008. It is submitted that as the father of petitioner was unwell and was suffering from Paralysis, he was intermittently remained absent. Charge memo dated -3- NC: 2024:KHC:9530 WP No. 10476 of 2019 04.05.2015 was issued to the petitioner under Regulation 19 and 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short "1971 Regulations"), alleging unauthorized absence from 14.12.2014 without leave application and without getting sanction of leave; not answered to the call letter dated 19.02.2014 and continued to remain absent without any submission; and petitioner's absence has caused inconvenience in functioning of the Corporation and providing service to the public. Petitioner submitted his reply stating that his father is suffering from Paralysis and since he has been transferred to Sakaleshpur Depot in November-2014, it has become difficult for him to travel 190 kilometers to attend to his duty at Sakaleshpur. Respondent/Corporation not being satisfied with the explanation of petitioner, appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and based on the enquiry report, Respondent/Corporation passed order dated 12.01.2016 dismissing the petitioner from service. Against -4- NC: 2024:KHC:9530 WP No. 10476 of 2019 which, petitioner sought reference of dispute and accordingly it was referred to Labour Court at Chikkamagaluru in I.D.A.No.2/2016. The Labour Court on preliminary issue held that the enquiry held by respondent/Corporation is not fair and proper. The respondent/Corporation led its evidence to prove the charge against petitioner. The respondent/Corporation examined two witnesses as MW1 and MW2 and marked documents at Ex.M1 to Ex.M37 to prove the charge against petitioner, whereas petitioner examined himself as WW1 and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W16 documents. Labour Court under impugned order rejected the claim of petitioner to set aside the dismissal order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that order of dismissal (Ex.M36) as well as impugned award is unsustainable and are opposed to material on record. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner never remained unauthorized absent, but only on intimating the respondent/Corporation and submitting -5- NC: 2024:KHC:9530 WP No. 10476 of 2019 medical records with regard to ill-health of his father, he remained absent. In that regard, learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to deposition of MW1 and submits that MW1 admitted receipt of intimation as well as medical records relating to his father. It is submitted that when petitioner intimated the respondent/Corporation with regard to ill-health of his father, it would not amount to unauthorized absent. Learned counsel would submit that Labour Court failed to appreciate the medical records and the other material made available by the petitioner/Workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Ex.W8, Ex.W9 and Ex.W13 would submit that same would establish that petitioner's father was suffering from ill-health and was taking treatment. It is further submitted that petitioner had made available medical records to the Enquiry Officer also. But, the Enquiry Officer failed to consider those materials. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner's request for transfer from Sakaleshpur to Arasikere or Kadur Depot was also not considered so as to enable to take care of his father. Thus, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:9530 WP No. 10476 of 2019 learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for allowing writ petition and to set aside the impugned Award.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation supports the impugned Award.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire records, only point which falls for consideration is as to, "Whether impugned Award and impugned order of dismissal requires interference?"
Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:
7. While petitioner was working as Driver-cum- Conductor in respondent/Corporation. Charge memo dated 04.05.2015 was issued to the petitioner for imposing major penalty under Regulation 23 of the 1971 Regulations. The alleged charge reads as follows:
"1. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢:14-12-14 EAzÀ FªÀgÉUÀÆ ºÁUÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄÄ£ÀÆßZÀ£É ¤ÃqÀzÉà -7- NC: 2024:KHC:9530 WP No. 10476 of 2019 ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀzÉ gÀeÁ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹PÉƼÀîzÉà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁAiÀÄðPÉëÃvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ©qÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆPÁÛ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉà PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV UÉÊgÀĺÁdgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.
2. ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¢:19-02-15 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ «¼Á¸ÀPÉÌ PÀgÉ¥ÀvÀæ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, PÀvÀðªÀåPÀÆÌ ºÁdgÁUÀzÉ, ¤ªÀÄä UÉÊgÀĺÁdjAiÀÄ §UÉÎ °TvÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀzÉ ¤ªÀÄä UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹgÀÄwÛÃj.
3. F ¤ªÀÄä UÉÊgÀĺÁj¬ÄAzÁV WÀlPÀzÀ zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À ¸ÁjUÉ PÁAiÀiÁðZÀuÉUÉ C£Á£ÀÄPÀÆ® GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ CUÀvÀå ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ F ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAXü¹ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtÂPÀjUÉ C£Á£ÀÄPÀÆ® GAmÁV ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ DzÁAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ WÀ£ÀvÉUÉ zÀPÉÌAiÀÄÄAmÁUÀ®Ä PÁgÀtgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.
4. ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀ.gÁ.gÀ.¸Á.¤UÀªÀÄzÀ gÀeÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1964 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ®èzÉ ¤UÀªÀÄzÀ £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
8. In sum and substance, charge against the petitioner is that he remained unauthorized absence from 14.12.2014 without submitting any leave application or -8- NC: 2024:KHC:9530 WP No. 10476 of 2019 getting leave sanction from the authority and also not obtaining permission from the competent authority to leave head quarters; not reported to duty on receiving call letter dated 19.02.2015 and not submitting any reply.
9. Admittedly, Labour Court under order dated 26.06.2018 on preliminary issue held that enquiry conducted by respondent/Corporation is not fair and proper. Thereafter respondent/Corporation led its evidence before the Labour Court, examined MW1 and MW2 - Management witnesses and also marked Ex.M1 to Ex.M37 to prove charge against the petitioner. Petitioner also examined himself as WW1 and marked Ex.W1 to Ex.W16. Petitioner/Workman would not deny the allegation of remaining absent from 14.12.2014, but the explanation is that father of the petitioner/Workman was not well and he was suffering from Paralysis. It is also stated that he has placed on record relevant material to prove that his father was suffering from Paralysis and assistance of the petitioner was needed.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:9530 WP No. 10476 of 2019
10. A perusal of the exhibits i.e., Ex.W8, Ex.W9, Ex.W13 and Ex.W14, it is seen that Ex.W9 and Ex.W13 - medical certificates dated 13.12.2011 issued by Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Baguru, Hosadurga Taluk relates to period from 16.10.2011 to 13.12.2011, much prior to the date of petitioner's unauthorized absence. They are not relevant documents to disprove the charge against the petitioner. Charge against petitioner is that unauthorized absence from November-2014 onwards. Ex.W8 is dated 15.05.2015, certificate said to have been issued by one H.S.Ramaswamy, Private Registered Medical Practitioner. A perusal of the said document would indicate that person who issued the said certificate is not a qualified Doctor. Moreover, there is overwriting in the said certificate. Certificates at Ex.W9 and Ex.W13 are issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bagur, Hosadurga Taluk and Ex.W8 obtained from unqualified person cannot be taken note of. Ex.W14, medical certificate would indicate that petitioner's father took
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9530 WP No. 10476 of 2019 treatment as OPD patient from 10.12.2014. There is no documents or medical certificate to indicate that petitioner's father was suffering from Paralysis.
11. The Labour Court during the course of its Award has observed that first party - Workman when he was at Kadur was working sincerely and when he was transferred to Sakaleshpur, he worked only for two days and remained unauthorized absent. It appears that transfer of the petitioner from Kadur to Sakaleshpur appears to be the reason for petitioner remaining unauthorized absent and not his father's ill-health. It is relevant to note that despite call notice dated 19.02.2015, petitioner failed to report to duty or to submit his explanation.
12. It is also seen from the Award that during his service, petitioner had committed misconduct on nine occasions and had suffered minor punishments. For remaining unauthorized absence for more than a year, the punishment of dismissal is appropriate as held by the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9530 WP No. 10476 of 2019 Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.387/2022 dated 09.11.2022.
No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC CT:JR LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32