Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... vs B Mariswamy on 20 June, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
V' "AGE'i~4'?
IN1}ߤHKHiCOUR(H*KARNATAKA,BANGALORE
DATED1$HS1}H§20mIMfi?0FJUNE,2QL:A ,
BEFORE
THE HODPBLE MRJUSTIC13 MoEiaN"LjjRr:finY Q "
WRIT PETITION No. 14392 §'2~€.¥«..}fl;(l'*4'{';'{.;§;I*I.'S'}'?."I'{VTf,E-}___A
BEZTVVEEN :
BANGALORE METROPQLITAN
TRANSPQRT CORPORATION V.
CENTRAL OFFICES, K H 120229 5
SHANTHINAGAR " ' '
BANGALQRE3 « 27 '- _ .
333 ITS MANAGING-DIRE
NOW REPRESENTF:D 'BY 1:13 1. _
CHIEF LAW Q1§fr?:cE;:'<". . . ' '
...PETITIONER
{BY sR1.iH%*suJfli'i;iAé}3 <:E:AN-r§RA"ABV?QcATE
§>.:>R azgpwmg, .AD'v'GCA'I'E':.)
AND:
B MABJSWAM? V
S /0.. «BASAVAIAH " A
NC3;9{1 /88, G??? '-GANESHA TEMPLE
<>:m\z::L1;v--Ro:..x:':~._ *
::§AEé;aYA:=2é';9.%?A ,
BANC;ALQRE 553 064;.
. ..RESP{;>NDE;NT
' {B":'fSRJ.': E MUE§£{AN'NAPPA 5: A/S}
" _'A:?£*;E~IIS XEVRYE' PET'§'f'IC}?€ IS FILED UNSER ARTICLES 226 A59
~ Q? THE CO,?'€S'§Tf'U'E'ION OE' fi\EDL:'53 }'3R53:YING TS QEJASH TEES
_ A'x7'*€Lfi';RS REF.E'€0.59;'2i3<}5 Dz"4Y£'E2§3 3fi;""§{};'2{}QQ P;%SS>Y:TD BY
V "EVER ?R'EZSEE}EE\§G OE'§'E{i§:'1§2$ HE AEEDL. L/ABGUR Cf3i,?R'R
8A?~EG.§LGRE, {1%_§'~E?*=EEiE{3IJREZ --~ L}: AMNB EZ"T{l
2
THIS PEITITiOi\i COMING ON FOR PRI,.HEARINv{}Vi"Z§\i~..'_B'
GROUP, THES DAY, THE COURT MADE THE', FOLLCHIVING: * _ 3
ORDER i .. n A
Petitioner when appointed aa . the
responeieni:~Road Transport Cor_poration--ti_e1ib*niittegi
Transfer Certificate dt.28.2;i'1-Q84 fliigh
School? Davis Road, Thomas efertifying
Admission No. 126/ _oii in VIII Std and
left the school in the of the said
document, reifeaiiend that s.ehoo1ureeeived recognition
through leiiteri-éédtf9';'?.'i"$.§f?6' 'and"th'erefore, the Transfer
Certifieatiev the petitioner to the
seheol tiuring ' was fabricated. Disciplinary
proceeding iirae initiated" by issuing Articles of Charge. a
ehqpuiryivhieiei, whence the reporting official of
and the Headrriiatress by name Sister
Siiaai Aiwhen examined, produced the original
:"axdrniiseivon register and the permission ietter. in the
ample opportunity of hearing was extenaed. to
-»f:.i*§:e petitioner; foiiowing whieii the enquiry officer
atihrnitted a report holding the ehargge preiredi The
La.)
Discipiinary Autherity on an independent assess::1Ve_1ff:._et'
the facts, Circumstances and evidence on :e'éo:<::~
the petitiener guilty cf the charge and*'E3}§i:~0r'{iVer<«Adi;
1.10.2004 dismissed the petitioner frQmj1's'e:ij€iee;' '
2. Petitioner having "i-rgvoked the' ..cc;if1'ei1i.9iion = '
machinery under the v1.§4'?, for
short 'ID Act', led to of the State
Government dispute for
adjudicatiop; fig' Bangalore.
Parties and filed their
respecriye framed an additional
issue 0v'erVi%1_Ve 1Ial'idity_ef.._£he domestic enquiry and after
recerfling' evideriee .... the parties both oral and
:he1<:I the enquiry as fair and proper.
Th't?I'CiS-r, ssmrignan was fflfthfif €iXE£II1i1"1€d €153
".'Q\?X3J~1 the aflegatiien 0f victimisation and marked 3
5%¢£{><,{;:'r;:en:s as EZ;xs.W1 fie W3. Labeur eeurt having
regard to the rnaieriai Q13 reeerci heir? Ehat the finfiings (sf
fhe Enquiry Qffizter and the Bieeipligzary fixuzheriéy ever
L
the charge was neither perverse nor based *
evidence and aeeordingiy, affirmed _'iiie"~:ijvfintiii1.gsve;v_V
However, the Labour Court obser\;ee:i.\:' sin(:'e_'"in" ii'}::.:ee_'
other eases of similar aeis of.tniseoni:1i§:ei.: rnignof
punishments were orderetfh-.:"iExs.W"'1_V_ and
petitioner having put ye'éirss.:VVse:fvice iéifiqyfged 48
years. the pLinis4in9n_e11'i;'~v~. V of }:ii's'ijnissa1 was
disproportion2_u".e_ -to misconduct
provedi 'igeiooiiiiiiiiiiiiourt exercising
diSCT"3fi'3T1'Vffi©ie1;q':i'1(5:f33<:tifij:*':::iAiiéesof. Act interfered with
the and modified the same by
directing' withholding four annual
increments vwith" Cumulative effect and denying
fl'i3ae'K\2\}a§§es;'i' conseouential benefits however with
s.{::V)V:<'1si:i'r::;:ii?;3.{i of seijviee for pension / retirement benefits and
no't.__rifo1f_."iine::ement or promotion by award dt.
Hence this petition by the Corporation.
:3. in {he admitted faeis of the ease the Charge of
V' eroéneing febrietaied fioemnen': .{/5:} secure an
appointment having been proved, the petitie:é§er"ear::1e:
per permitted re <:or1Ei:1ue in serv'i:ee.;_'-'Trie ebeerxraiifi-en
the Apex Ceurt in 'UNION'«..._VOF "I1\fI)IA. 'geese: v}
M.BI-IASKARAN & 01251', eireurrretarices, i5
appesite:
"When OflC€vffaud:6I'£"th:€ er:1p1c_)yer': isrfietected, the
app0intm"e4ri*i:;je.rerdezite " are tainted and
vitiatedd'Vlfrffreiijiéi etfidfi'.--«:§VéteV"ehe8§ting or: the part
of_tIf1e_ 'appfirxtnlent orders are
1i2;b1e_ !:T$evVreeaI1ede é1:1§i Vcidable at the option of
Once the fraud of the
emp1eryeVesv. such employment was
" fietected, Vthe evmp1:0yees were proceeded against in
eiefiarirxaental efir1«uiries and ealied upon to have
V thereafter have been removed from
:: C$I'CI€I'S of removal would amount to
'~._reC.=;:IIir1g' 0f fraudulently obiained erreneous
appeiintment orders which were avoided by the
AA "err1pIoyer after foflowing the due process of iaw
end eerziplying with the principles 0f natural
jusiice. E'rauduZer1t1§; obtained appoirltmeni
orciers eeuld be Eegitimately treated as voidable at
the oeiierz of the employer and eeuié be reeafieei
by the empieyer anti in such eaeee rnereiy
because Erie empiejgeee hazre eezziirmeci in Service
' :é:ee<§ 3 gig ?é%§
6 . .
for number of years on the basis""0-§:'VV$1i'::h'--A
frauduleritly obtained empio3}fi1e:%fi 'n:§r'<iE_e::r§:
create an}; equity in their fa\;c:;1;I:1----:}::'an}}'
in favour c:»f tbs en1p1{)y€§?i_" ."--~._. 'A _ '
4. Similar are the ob$ef{faf 1'0r;s of Court,
in the following OpiI1i0Y::1 S~f.. ' V. 'V
(i) 'Kerala So1ven't v.
A.Unni1;;r ishna;i1 V' 'V V'
(ii)'Dist_ric:*.': :f ' Chairman,
Viziahx1.2'i1g:i:;;ja1rVi: Wjflfare Residential
_Aޤther V. M.Tripu.ra
$=.ufi.da1'i> « '
(iii) .ofv' In4Vc'fi_2i A.Nagama1leshwar Rao4'
u'EJnite<i'~.._Ii§sur:ance Co. Ltd. 'J'. Rajendra
§ingh_& ms.'
_ ' Bench of this Court in 'The
vhf VISL v. B.Veeranna Gowda Patilfi',
'V f0i1<).4{&'i.r:{gV aforesaid decisions 0f {he Ap€X Court,
«.V:C'£C--=:;1.i4_::e§1" to intasrfere in the matter sf iermination of
.'--.»";¢'1V:fi'.V1"""x;¥'i{fE3 after a diaciplinary proceeding", extending
V' ':9=:;={::3:- s::te;i
~ iimszg LL}
;2><:es§a::'; 30:? ?i}E}*
'f 2§}{,}i}{§'>} 31:?
* ELK 2&4 Km 4a3€;e%
'V perifersé' ~
NJ
reasonable opportunity of hearing and having' found the
Workman to have obtained an appoi:1tme;i't.4""'o3;)y
fraudulent means by producing forged .
academic documexitsg disentitling the."'iv'of};rri'a.n'.V to
equitable Consideration or relief.
6. In the factual LaI:;oi;:.rV_
that the workman had pg': 31101 i3
aged 46 years ooupledfl in identical
circumstances: ' V had produced
bogus cerféficaitzs in employment by
imposigdg A d':1fi:i_.r1o1*A?._ «punishments and therefore,
punishment of ' €i_iSm'i.§S'a1.''is''' grossly disproportionate to
the }_:u'ox{ed in-i:~;(':otidd'?:t, in my considered opinion is
the Labour Courfs conclusion that in
1'._iCi€I}fi(:~?L1A§7iI'£':uIT1S'{a1'}C€S, similarly piaced workrnen were
"«_perrf:'itted to continue in service by imposing minor
pdmshmezzt pwoufid €§ELi£'sE'. to tho bpnofii of tho
'«fJGf'§§£'3"§é:E§i, in mg; oougideréid opinion £3 fiiogai and
8
unsustainable. Article 14 of the CQHStifuti'{:*t:1
provides for equality which is .27;-"'pueit:v~'e
cannet be enforced in a negative ;n"ax1ne;~, '~ .BeI"1et'itvS'~._
extended to some persans i£1eg'a.1_ 'Qru''~--iffegi:1ar ''
manner. earmet be c1.a.:EmedAV.-bfvotiaers oh-v.t,he.'3p1ea of
equaiity. Wrong 0rdef"'e15j.Ltdg:t1i§3Ii't--passed in favour of
one person wouid not:-e'r1titi'e artottter .tb'.v"e1aim benefits.
This is the %1a§x; I.:*:eigjit:i._V_cit;>4\"2er11:' tlfie«}Xtjeii"Court 'STATE OF
BIHAR & %0Re~.._pRAsAD SINGH 8:
ANR?,' an-e. I:tgatee.'.vQfV"E§T;£*;TE"§OF UTTARANCHAL V3
ALOK t
Tfie VLa1:}.01i;f V'Cu0urt's observation that the
head set*Vve.d~the Corporation for fourteen years
and for equitable consideration, is whofly
rtxiAép13,eed--'V.';f:;--ti§tiucontrary to the eabservations of the Apex
CQ1,tt;t..iiv1V 'BANK OF INDIA ez ANQTHER V1 AVENASH
8: ORS9', following tts earlier
2{}{}{,}{§*} SCC $4
Z':}§}§ /KER §:s{7's'2" 44?? 5: :i2i}{}5} C? Si]? 532%}
9
observations in 'RXFISHWANATHA PILLAI V.
KERALA 8.: ORSE9.' which reads thus: L
similar piss. about bag years sf
considered by this Court I
PILLAI V. STATE OF
be inconsequential. peifawi
0bserVed:(SCC pp.116~17')"a ' 'V 1 T
"19.It was then '~~q:«_0nt_én'sfiié<$':_b§"..Shri R anjit
Kurnaxz learned!' for the
appeflanta. that:.A":sivn,c:::e " has
render;;3ci"é;;bLj1=.t:f37 €_Ve3éi:ré"0f: vS;i1'"x'.i'.<T.?.£:*,', the order
of by an order of
remavai from
:v:S€1"Vi_'CVA?¢:Z"V' T.'€V'* pcnsionary benefits of
"Q16. not find any substance
in as well. The rights to
' "salary, "p.eif1Vsi0nv'.1nd other service benefits are
%§13tii"€Iy st21«'ii':'f<')'1v'y' in nature in public: service.
_ :V"'V.a:.f)§}e11ant abtained the appointment
' VVégV%1;nsigé;V..130st meant for a reserved Candidate
nfaducing a false caste cczrtificate and by
*~ niaying 3. fraud. His appointment to the pest
nés void and non est in thé eyes 0f the law.
Thfi right to $a1ar'y or pension. after retinenaent
flnws frcsm 3 Valid and kigal appointment.
Tina Cnnsfiquenéiai righi of nension and
"" ;%;i:;<;a:a<:V; E§iT€;f 2:25 gzaizzi @
9. In 'MAHINDRA $1
N.B.NARAWADE1 1', the Ape}: Cour': ebserveeI"ihii'sV§i.".
"20. it is he deuht true that bin'i::e'z:¥fueii:ie:n
Seetien ILA in the Indusifia1--Ae;,
certain aniount of diseiieiien isii/'ested
Labour Court / Industrialfifgihiinai in~in3:effering
with the quantunipf aw3.h*:1e€i"'hy
the management 'eeneerned
is found guilty of ifn.i.se_een<:h1e'§. area of
discretion beengvei'y"=V§}ei:1"defined by the
Various "".C-'flirt referred to
he:eihai:>e9ve1'V«:a,nd not unlimited as
hes beAefii.j';ibseA21f\}edjvibgitheh--DiVision Bench ef the
I «Cdurifilf"~.%1§i1A€%i'i"'fii§eretion which can be
eXereis__ed 1 LA is avaiiabie only on
4§theeA.eXistenee' hf Certain factors Iike punishment
A.disp'i"0f§<5i*'Li0nate t0 the gravity of
--1jn'ise0I:ii:hi,eI; so as in disturb the conscience (if
"eihie:"V¢;m1<{;;"..or the existence of any mitigating
ei1f_eurns=ie.nees which require the reduction of
the"; sentence, er the past eenciuet of the
AA ' _wei;i{rnan which may persuade the Labour Court
is reduce the punishment."
This ebservatien was fefiewed by the Ape}: Court
in 'L & 'Y KQEVEATSU LTB. V. i'€.¥§Di5iYAK{§MAR33Z
" 2ié€E§{3> 5.;{f:i;%
10. In the instant case, Home of the eireumsteiiees
existed or were established before the Labour
exercise of diseretien under Section 11~_A__ c:;>'£._t1§.e'~
The contention of the learned
respondent that under _eE;§;.s.R?V'i._ "--fe 'x'3.€'7;:'3u,'..
punishments were imp0se'eE'V.:._V"v'hy 1':'heV:'hkpefgtionerw Corporatien in bogus certificate I am 2.1.f:~g,uc1 v;x,zi3J,:._Yi:<3t."ee1i:;reA:i;he'V"benefit of the workman. 14 of the which is a p0siLive__ be enfereed in 9. negative manner. to some persons in an illegal e1'eA.irregt:1.aHi* Vrnahner, cannot be eiaimed by others; equality. Wrong erder or judgment pae;¥3.ed "i1'é"'fajvefuf. of one persen would not entifle another V . to eiéairr:-. i§e:'iefits. This is the law Eaid eiown by the Apex Qgzzzft if! 'State of Bihar 8: Grs; V. Kameshwar Prasad
-- 82: Ant.' anei in the eaee of 'State of Bttaranchai " "Vise Alas}; Sharma 8: 6:5.' {supra}, '3 ::>{>eg;e; see I3
11. In the result the petition is a1Iewed;e'V_"'7Fhe finding of the Labour Ceurt that the punj:;3}1n;e§ie.j' dismissal is gresely disproportionate to the_":i:1:2Se§§:14e£;i'ei proved and the exercise diseretigen Se'etii'e:;..L1' of the Act to interfere with,t_he otdei*..of pg.fi:i.ehr£1e:}.fi."s0VK as to modify the order "'Arein?S':'3:teI§:1ent withholding four anriuel vxrifi'£'14{»..,»{/~;;7;i:11uIa'.tixrr:
effect with other benefifss',' in all other aspects remeilze 'feefererlce stands rejected. 1 ' 1 _ AV ____ "
1:i:V.« " V