Sri Arifulla S/O Abdul Gafoor vs The Divisional Controller K S R T C on 2 June, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Arifulla S/O Abdul Gafoor vs The Divisional Controller K S R T C on 2 June, 2008

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE   '.

DATED THIS THE 2"' DAY OF JUNE 2008
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICES. ABI;)»ifL'1'%{<12:'EEY€ .:_':   ii %  
W1zIrPE;"1r10NN0.15a3sa2oa5 (%LKsfRrQ_ &_%_%%  . 1 % '

Between:

Sri Arifulla,

Agedabout52years._. ji L 1» _
Sic Ab&1lGafoor, ~- V  '
R/a No.7l0,    -- 
Ko1arTown, Kolar.    2; ~

The  

 3  """ 

   _  %     Respondent.

   7  Petition is ﬁled under Articles 226 & 227 ofthe
  praying to quash the impinged award dated
   2.9,8.20%G5 passed by the II Additioml Labour Court, Banglore,



This W:-it Petition coming on for Preiiminary 

Group this day, the Court made the foflowing:
ORDER

Tim petitioner had been working Koiar (for short 'Corporation'). The 6.10.1987. The charges wen: mega . T " on the basis of which the" ' hue: ﬁom service. geve {Q :.-.n[ inémial diwute and the workman Lexi Section I0(4-A) of the rmn:sui;a1;j Agfberoge the H Additional Labour Court, V. relied on the enquiry proceedings heid produced the enquiry file. The workman H VV °""°ﬁ>d "" 'lfthe domestic enqu1ry' . Since the charge se:i9.I.:s, tl1.e dismissal ofthe petitioner was upheld by the 3 Labourcouztandtmapplicationﬁiedbytheworkmanwas dianissed by the inmlgned award.

2. I have heard the learned Coumel forthe ,_ ' Labour Court was not yum" 'tied in ho1d:'ngM'%L%%':§§ ;s: ﬁe proved. It is submitted that ofnm ems mgbeen I . I his ﬂ ii' i .1 awarded is the charges alleged to have bow Pmved ag.amt ' the wvné J _ the impugned award ' W H 'A AA5.;I4_m§e:mreﬁ1lly comidered the argumas of the learned at the bar md perused the materials' placed on

6. As noticed above, the workman has T T conceding the fa.1mes' s of the domestic" iv No.1 was answered 'm the aﬁrmative Corporat1on' has produced the relevant the dtmesic enquiry, which are the recoxw that the of the Checking poim of allegations {He has been mbjected to by gm Wm m assistance of his 00- did not wdduce any oral evidcnee he has submitied his written briefas per Ex%1916;*%T11§: agaitm the petitioner in the articles of Vvcharge me main aixeguon' mm' the ' aﬁer the entry made by the Traﬁic Comroller tickets ¢fRs.8.5O ps. denornxzmﬂ 'on, the petmon' ' er w I . "tickets ﬁ'om S£.No.620 to 573 ofthe said danomma$1' 'on and in ,.

while makingenay in the way bill, be ms entered numbexs 6 "

in pencil whsequently with a sole mtention _ thereaﬂer reuse the said so tickets by gplleﬁinﬁfme the ulterior maﬁve has nmie entries ofdenonnnat1' 'on of Rs.8,50 ps. ﬁne last 3 numbers mum has memioned the denomnm:1' "on of Rs.l0r'-. The '§_vay_ ' , court below shows that aﬁerthe entry byiE§e«T';'§1:I'Ei::§§"€$:§§iIi}oileratthe bus mad mm numbezs 6 and 3 in black ink aw

7 in between numbers 6 and 3 in peg» ya} '1 5°No.6 and ﬁmn gage Nos}? to 11 has only M % 5 and s in black id: xmzmgan mm smoe in at stage No.12, he ms mentioned only number 5 in Va wotkman has offered ewlanaion for having written "

pemi1.kishiscaseﬂmaﬁahcimwdﬁcketsmﬂwpgsset;g§xg:ﬁ§ started making' cntnes' in the way bill in ball *5;-. q,,- % u 1 ; ' not complete the entries on aocoum 'of he mac the pencil mm in the way ut'Vii£!,V it.Vis petitioner has not oﬁéred any mbers 6 and 8 in black 'ml: geavm space in between. It is :0 ﬁtmish any explanation' """ black ink a: stage the serial nInnAl'3«e.'rs:cf ' of 123.850 ps. When with his ball pen. Even in respect of has not cffered plausible explanation V "V:{'Y?& 0ﬁ .&pprec1: 'a1en' of the material on record has come eamgmiaaﬁ that pants' hue: lms made the are.-mid esm'1es' with an ultetiorhgaative to reuse the tickets of Ir' denomimion ofRs.8.5~O ps. mm connection, the court observed aslmderr "lfat ail the am pmty man lost his p~;n%%rg43}% % mm workmg,' I do not amé H could write the 14:0,: is;

the very same ink exée';it--th3_' _' ' to ticket of aenm'm:iong§Rs;s.so' 551: me ban pea ofthe liad the pencil entries am. all remammg' ' ;.em, which clearly " ' 'on of Rs.8.$0 ps. has i::oo;:2pie$;;§'ei§Etxias and thereafter used _ peagm as me with a sole mm to erase [ 7 written in pencil and themaita' re-

7. below wasalsooftheviewthattheworkman VA '- Lﬂto ﬁmnsh' pmper explanation for having punched no h Eof denomination of Rs.8.5O ps. ﬁom Stage No.1 to 12. The Kk.

ﬁndings recorded by the count beiow are based on the A4 _ Court

8. Now the question is is entiuiry? AS Peffhe involved in as many as 17 . 3 i the revenue of tiw pumshmem' . It is service for mmti vi "waned; misconduct" in the pm and was iiato service in the year 1997. It is " awarded by the disciplinary' authority' to the charge, should not be imterf' V exercise cf the power of review. While thin: the amount efmeney misappropriated that becomes a fed for awardingpunislmem. On the contrary, it is the kn

1.

9. I do not find any it is dismissed. No costs. V

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court