Mr G Sounder Raj vs Management Of Ksrtc on 7 July, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr G Sounder Raj vs Management Of Ksrtc on 7 July, 2010

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 77" DAY OF JULY,_-201"O:'    »

BEFORE 

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE HAN. Isq'AGA1wOH:AT\é 

W.P.Ne.1227'?§}2®98 (L§1<;S:RTC)7:V 'A  
BETWEEN:   " ._  A 

MR.G.SOUNDER RAJ .    1'
S/O LATE V.GOVINDASWAMY--_ 2;; ;
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS  " '
RESIDING AT No.34,    4 "-
'LAKSHMI KU1\fz--.4'--§R'-NILAYA',_ ;?'D..CRQSS,' "
AIJAPPA BLO3CK,j}3INNUR,1;_ _  ' 
R.T.NAGAR'POS.T.;*-V"V,     '
BANGALORE --*i_560 032.'   ',  '

. 1111      ..PETITIONER

(By sri;.M Cf NAVIKMSI-Iv }IA;1\aR',.O:S'R;COUNSEL
FOR swAMY_A1~1_D .SI1'EGH., ADV.)

A,N.1;52$ V *

V1'  AGEIu:EI«J_T OF K.S.R.'1".C.,
 L 'CENTRAL OREICE, 'SAARIGE BHAVAN',
 R;-H.ROAD.,, BANGALORE W. 560 027.

 AUTHORTIY.

REEBY DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL &
ENv1RONr.4ENT) AND DISCIPLINARY

..RESPONDENT

-, (}3y_§mt SHWETHA ANAND, ADV.,) r'-5 f THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UIA 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE OF DOMESTIC ENQUIRY DT.27.08.2004 (VIBE ANNEXUREJ) AND SET ASIDE THE DT.1I.GI.2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING_'O_FI'IjCER', III ADDITIONAL LABOUT COURT, BANGALORE-IN (ANNEXURE--K) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION IIAVINGWEII BEEN._ -HE.AR,D_"'IA1\.TD RESERVED FOR ORDERS, H.1'«1.NAjGeAM()1-IAESJ PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING; _ 0 I In this writ petitiohﬁle ._nra3IedIfor'"a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash -- Annexure J and the award 'd'a.ted 1I:.O1§2(.)I)8 K in ID. No. 91/1998 iﬁassée by Cou'rtatVI3angaIore. Pettitionerfvqasappointecf"by the respondent ---- the Karnataka State RoadIffransnort'CorpOi_ation (for short 'the Corporation') in the yea.tgI974. The"res:ponAdent Corporation formed a trust calied the » 'ﬁrnhioyees Death--cuIn-Retirement Benefit Fund (for short I affairs of the Trust are managed by a governing cou'neiI"'V.oohinrising of Chairman and 7 members. The governing I .. Eeounciliof the Trust are nominated by the management of respondent 'A"';-ICOrporatiOn and recognised workers' federation. On 05.12.1988 «....i O"

the services of the petitioner came to be lent on deputationytiov. the Trust. The governing council of the Trust passed authorising the petitioner to work as_S.ec__retary"of 'Tt~ust. The respondent Corporation vide order dated the petitioner from service pending"-~,enquiry as 'Annexure Subsequently the respondent Corporatio:1.._issued"articles; of charges on 05.12.1996 as per T4 articles of charges it is alleged that the petitioner"tn;isappropriatedV- of Rs. 19,84,875/~ by abusing... vs of the Trust, rnanipulated 'T by inserting a separate typed:para-- psuibrnitted by the petitioner was not satisfactogweriquiryiproceedings are initiated against the petitioner. The.iEnq'ui.ry (T)TfficeVr____s_nbn'u'tted his report stating that the charges ' V.1evel1e::1_vagair1stv the petitioner as proved. The Disciplinary Authority enquiry report passed an order of penalty on O2.al2.1V998.dismtssing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by this norder of dismissal the petitioner raised a dispute before the labour gem in 1.1). No. 91/1998 under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial 59""

Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). On the basis of pleadings, the labour Court framed the following issues. i. Whether the II party proves that the enquiry conducted against I party was andyilegalf ii. Whether 11 party is jus~tifie'd«in vlfparty i guilty of charge?

iii. Whether the II pa:-t_ynsg justified 'i.nj"disiniiVssed the 1"

party from service ascpesycrda dated 02:1 ZV41998? iv. To what reliefs,.;if 8'f1jr",V:'l$ party entitled? On'vpre1iniinary:"is'sue_ relating to domestic enquiry the respondent 'Corporation eitaiftiiied one witness as M.W.i and got marked The labour Court vide order dated . 27;c{)l§.23()04"i' held thvaﬂtwthe preliminary issue relating to domestic lenquity.l'a.s"fair_.and valid. On the question of victimisation the petition_er' eitainined himself as W.W.1 and got marked Ex.W.1 to 'l'he labour Court on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and ii 't.Vdo--:un1entary evidence passed the impugned award rejecting the so «claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. r-5 3

4. Sri. M.C. Narasimhan, learned Senior counsel--"for the petitioner contends that the Trust is a different legal e.nti4tyvV'fr'om'the respondent Corporation. When the petitioner was'7wVori§jngi' as 'the V' Secretary of the Trust the respondent Corpo'ratio'n has jurisdiction to initiate enquiry proceedings and top_ass.._the irnp_ug'ned o1--'der.oi"--..p penalty. In the absence of a coniplain.t from .thev'Iv."r'ust'v;tI'iere is no justification for the res5p0..nden'th'Eorporation to initivate enquiry proceedings. The labour Court in not properly appreciating th.e'ni.aterial;:on grecordi ':T'he'm_i_sconduct alleged against the petitioner ..:the"vrneaning of Regulation 3 of KSRTCJ sermts'ﬁ';-trjoiitiuiirvana Discipline) Regulation, 1971. Reliance is placed on the 'following decisions. of M/s. lndian Express and Chronical ii Vs. 1v1.c. Kapur, AIR 1974 so 1629 ii. 'itF'(A):rder in W.P. No. 29173-29178/1999 disposed on A 29/11/2000 and 01/12/2000 (KSRTC Employees Death--cum--Retirement Benefit Fund and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others) 1*"

:---J 67"

iii. Order in W.A. No. 665/2001 disposed on 16.94.2004 (KSRTC Vs. KSRTC Employees WDeath't;:ctt.m Retirement Benefit Fund and others)

5. Smt. Swetha Anand, learned»ieo1:nsel.'liiori"theirespondent Corporation supports the impugned It contended petitioner was lent on deputation the Trust.arrduhe,_co'nti'nued to be" i the employee of the respondentAi.€oi'poration. It 'i'sv..the~lrespondent Corporation who paid thelinonthiyv fsalariesvl:l_and"'all other allowances tot he petitioner during of'«deputatiOri'; It is on receipt of a report,Vfrornlti1e5vTrust,lthelrespondent Corporation initiated enquiry proceedings'; Thereforeiit is-. prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

-- 6'; I Heard argurnents on both the side and perused the entire writVpap'e--r_s." in

7. in the petition the order passed by the labour Court on i'lZ7,Ol8..2(.)V(l4 on preliminary issue relating to domestic enquiry is A duestioned, the same is not seriously contested. The labour Court noticed that the petitioner entered his appearance before the Enquiry P' 3"

7

Officer and did take part in the enquiry proceedings. Before the Enquiry Officer the petitioner confirmed that he had received the copies of documents relied on by the respondents. Though the petitioner contends that the Enquiry Officer has taken hostileiyattitude towards the petitioner, the same is not proved and_es'tahli~s.h'ed._.hy placing acceptable evidence on record. Before Of'ficer--, the petitioner submitted his written statement as and also written proof as per 13x.M.V6' and The»'ia5yo.ur.Courtviiiyii'B. appreciating this material on record rightly"--eonc'lude}d that the domestic enquiry as fair va_lid.i- justifiable ground to interfere with the 'saine; ~ 0 In ad idispvutesvbetween the Trust and the respondent ' No. 29173-29l78/1999 vide order dated 0 Single Judge of this Court held that the Trust is not a of the respondent Corporation and they are two different 0' legalentities. Further a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. "t§6'i5--'i"/'()0/2001 and connected matters vide order dated 16.04.2004 'affirmed the order of the learned Singie Judge. This ﬁnding that the :4?' 0,.

Trust is different iegal entity from the respondent Corporation had become final and the same is binding on the parties.

9. It is not in dispute that petitioner was employed. respondent Corporation in the year 1974. It is also notin vide order dated 05.12.1988 the petitionerwas sent 'deputati'onvi'to the Trust. Though petitioner works under.t'neA.Trust' its he continues to draw his rnonth1yv._sal,ary and ._oti:~er 'é;I1ow'an'ce's from"

the respondent Corporati.on. Therefore:'the""p_etitioner"continues to be the employee of the respondent iCofporationVZ_'.When the petitioner is working _Linderiv«"the1"'Tru'st"the respondent Corporation suo--rnotu cannot initiate "disciplinary enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. If t_l;eLTrust noticed the misconduct committed by the «p¢'iitaofmi thengthey can request the respondent Corporation to hold ._ei§quir'y 'to""take appropriate action in accordance with the Re'gula-t'ione:;"" In the instant case it is seen from the record that the 'A Trust sent a report on 02.01.1996 to the respondent Corporation with ail connected documents alleging certain charges of "imisappropriation of funds, fabrication of resolution, diverting the OLE"

Trust funds to the individual account etc. Based on this report by the Trust, the respondent Corporation issued articles of charge_s;'a.he1d enquiry proceedings and passed the impugned Therefore it cannot be said that the respondent_Cc.rporation has nioa. jurisdiction to initiate enquiry proceedingsagainstgtheyipetitionergaﬂn the other hand the Trust has.»no.___ jurisdiction to"'in'itia_te ei;1qu1i'yT". proceedings against the petitioner he is not*ernp1oyee. It is oniy the respondent to initiate enquiry proceedings against_ itheii the misconduct committed the contention of the leiarnedéi the petitioner that the respondent Corporation.._4_Vhas iinojiurisdiction to initiate enquiry proceedings agaiinstv the petitioner, _____ H .

A not in dispute that Karnataka State Road Transport Corporationxservants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 ii(fo1=-..short 'the Regulations') governs the service conditions of the petitioner. Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 3 of Regulations, 1971 reads as under:

,.,....

:4 0"

10

3. General --~ (1) Every Corporation servant sha'll"--.g at all times:-

(i) maintain absolute integrity;

(ii) maintain devotion to duty p p

(iii) do nothing which is i'_:unbe'conii'ng_.: of ' Corporation servant,_

11. In the articles of charges is alleged that the petitioner fabric'ated- the 'of the Trust dated 15.07.1992 by vsun*eptitio'usly' authorising the petitioner to --.a_n account at Vijaya Bank, .j:B"an'galore, in his personal name. By producinguthehhcopy' fahiicated resolution the petitioner opened a vsc-if~acAcount at "'Jij__aya» Bank. The petitioner credited brokerage, ' comlfnission'vandincentive received by the Trust to an extent of f?ss.'i9,84;87'5:!§A't1to his personal account. Thus the petitioner abused his tpssis-at 'as Secretary of the Trust. The Enquiry Officer after providing an opportunity to the petitioner and by considering the entire material on record submitted a report stating that the charges i levelled against the petitioner as proved. The charges alleged against r-....a 0' 1] the petitioner squarely fall under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 3 of Regulations, 1971. When it is proved that the petitioner is found guilty of misappropriation of funds, then the respondent looses its confidence and faith in him. 9 V I

12. Having regard to the position held the the Trust, the nature charges leVelled"'~a_gainst' him of' V misappropriation of funds, thf}',-~~~iﬂfl1fi1IghE)_'d orderv..of/Epenalty of dismissal of petitioner frorii serxl/'i;:;§:i;~9; 'aeeordance with law and I find no justifiablelgrouncfé to i'nterfere«.§vi.th thesame.

13:°F,or the reasonsstated above, the writ petition is hereby rejeiqtedl' Sd/-F IUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court