Karnataka High Court
H. M. Prabhulingappa vs The Divisional Controller on 17 April, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NOS. 15877/2011
AND 15878/2011(L-KSRTC)
IN W.A.No.15877 OF 2011:
BETWEEN
1 H. M. PRABHULINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O MUNICHANDRAPPA,
C/O MASTER NARYANA SWAMY
RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS,
KADLIPURA MAIN ROAD
KOLAR
... APPELLANT
(By Sri : K HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADV. )
AND :
1 THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C
KOLAR DIVISION
KOLAR
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
2
NO.7755/2010 DATED 06/06/2011.
IN WA No 15878 OF 2011:
BETWEEN:
1 H M PRABHULINGAPPA
S/O MUNICHANDRAGOWDA
AGED 54 YEARS,
C/O MASTER NARAYANA SWAMY
R/AT 4TH CROSS,KADLIPURA
MAIN ROAD, KOLAR.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri : K HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADV. )
AND :
1 THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KOLAR DIVISION,
KOLAR.
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.10292/2010 DATED 06/06/2011.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The workman was appointed as a driver with the respondent. At the time of employment he produced a Transfer Certificate certifying to have passed 7th 3 standard from Govt. Higher Primary School, Mangasandra. Subsequently on verification it was revealed that the said certificate was fabricated. The workman having made a false representation, Disciplinary proceedings were initiated. An enquiry was held and he was extended a reasonable opportunity. A report was submitted holding the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from service which led to conciliation proceedings. Thereafter, the State Government referred the same to the Industrial Dispute for adjudication. The Labour Court held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper. By a detailed order, considering the material evidence on record, it held the misconduct proved and by taking a lenient view held that the punishment of dismissal was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct proved and by exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act modified the punishment of dismissal, to reinstatement by with holding 4 increments with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment. 4 Aggrieved by the same, the workman filed W.P.NO.10292/10. The Corporation filed W.P.NO.7755/10.
2. The Learned Single Judge by a common order dismissed the petition filed by the Workman and allowed the petition filed by the Management. Consequently, the award of the Labour Court was quashed and the order of dismissal was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same the workman has filed Writ Appeal No.15877/11 as well as 15878/11 questioning the order of the Single Judge.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge is erroneous and interference is called for. That the Learned Single Judge failed to consider the plea put forth by the workman with regard to the disproportionate punishment that has been imposed.
4. On hearing the learned counsels, we are of the considered view that there is no error committed 5 by the Learned Single Judge that calls for any interference.
5. The facts would show that while seeking employment, a false certificate has been furnished by him. The prescribed educational qualification is of 4th standard. The certificate produced by him was untrue. It was fabricated. However, the Labour Court drew the inference that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. On these findings of the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the gravity of the misconduct would not entitle him for reinstatement. That the order of the Disciplinary Authority is just and proper.
6. It is apparent that the workman has played a fraud on the employer. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper. Though substantial opportunity was given to him to make out his case, he has failed to show that the documents produced were not fake or fabricated. Since a fraud has been played on the employer, the Management has rightly dismissed him 6 from service. We are of considered view that the dismissal of the appellant from the respondent - Corporation is just and proper. No employment can be sought on the basis of a created document.
7. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge is just and proper. We do not find any good grounds to interfere with the same.
8. Consequently, both the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.
Under these circumstances, consideration of the Application for condonation of delay would not arise for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak