B Anjanappa vs The Managing Director on 6 July, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B Anjanappa vs The Managing Director on 6 July, 2021

Bench: P.B. Bajanthri

                               1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
         DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
                             BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

     WRIT PETITION NO.34260/2016 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:

B. ANJANAPPA
S/O LATE HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A 1ST WARD, JOISARAKERI,
OPPOSITE TO PUNDI
KOTRABASAPPA HOUSE
HARAPANAHALLI,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT                           ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,
       K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR
       BANGALORE - 560 027

2.     THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
       KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION,
       DAVANAGERE - 583 131
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-
M TO W.P. AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS PHYSICAL
HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                      2




                              ORDER

In the instant petition petitioner has assailed the endorsement dated 19.5.2016 and further sought for direction to treat the period of accidental injuries as well as the rest period as Injury On Duty (for short 'IOD') and pay the salary for the period of 25 months and 15 days.

2 Petitioner met with an accident and suffered certain injuries in the year 2010. He has been extended certain service and monetary benefits as is evident from para No.2 of the statement of objections which reads as under:

The petitioner was working as a driver and while he was working at Harihara Depot, on 12/11/2010 when he was discharging his duties in Vehicle No. KA-17 F-1002 lying on route No.1B (Harihara-Bengaluru), the said vehicle met with an accident near Nyamakal Garge at Chitradurga City. Further, the petitioner submitted a medical certificate to the effect that he has taken treatment at General Hospital, Chitradurga for the injuries said to have sustained in the said accident. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said certificate nowhere it is stated that the disability is permanent. However, the petitioner he was granted IOD from 16/11/2010 to 08/07/2011 (for 239 days) and fully salary was paid to him for that period and he was 3 sanctioned leave from 09/07/2011 to 31/05/2012 (for 327 days). It is submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner that he was placed under suspension and not salary was paid to him is false and baseless. The petitioner was not suspended pending enquiry. The respondent submits that the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.1,31,236-00 towards IOD salary and further on humanitarian grounds 328 days leave in his account was sanction and salary of Rs.1,13,182-00 was paid to him. Thus a total sum of Rs.2,44,418-00 was paid to him.

Whereas the respondents have not taken specific decision as to why petitioner is not entitled to treat the period from 1.6.2012 to 25.7.2013 as IOD and in para No.4 of the statement of objections merely referred to the Medical Certificate and Circular. Further, in the endorsement it is stated that K.S.R.T.C (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'Regulations, 1971') - 35 do not provide for reconsideration. Regulation - 35 of Regulations, 1971 is in respect of 'Revision' in a Disciplinary Proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Disciplinary Proceedings initiated during the intervening period in which he was exonerated. The Author of endorsement dated 4 19.5.2016 has not examined 'Whether petitioner is entitled to IOD for the period from 1.6.2012 to 25.7.2013 or not?

4. Regulation - 35 of Regulations, 1971 is nothing to do with considering the aforesaid period as IOD. Thus, there is non application of mind in issuing endorsement dated 19.5.2016. Accordingly, endorsement is set aside and Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Davanagere is hereby directed to re-examine the petitioner's grievance relating to regulating the period from 1.6.2012 to 25.7.2013 as IOD or not. Petitioner is at liberty to file additional information, if any, to the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Davanagere within a period of one month from today. On receipt of petitioner's representation, the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Davanagere is hereby directed to pass a speaking order and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of petitioner's representation/application. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE BS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court