Karnataka High Court
Shri G Prakash vs The Managing Director on 24 September, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT APPEAL NOS.3040-3064/2013 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN
1.SHRI G PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O GOPALANAYAK,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO.3653,
K.S.R.T.C. MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A SIDDALINGAPURA POST,
HOSABEEDI, MYSORE-570001
2.SHRI MUNAVAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O MEHABOOB,
W/AS DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO.10265/19967
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A ESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
FORT, GORUR POST, KATTAI HOBLI,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
3.SHRI R S NARAYANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O SHAMBUGOWDA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 2046,
K.S.R.T.C.MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A SUBHASHNAGARA, K.R.PET POST,
MANDYA DISTICT-571401
2
4.SHRI S MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O M S SIDDHARAJU,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:3635,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A 19/B, BEHIND DODDARAMA
TEMPLE ROAD, VINAYAKA NAGAR,
MYSORE-570001
5.SHRI V RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O VENKATAPPA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:1616,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A # 520,GAYATHRIPURAM
2ND STAGE, UDAYAGIRI,
MYSORE-19
6.SHRI ANEES AHMED
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL AZEED,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:2979,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/AT #133,1ST STAGE,
RAJEEVANAGAR,
MYSORE-570001
7.SHRI N NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 2424,
K.S.R.T.C.MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A HERESAVE AND POST,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
8.SHRI Y P SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 2538,
3
K.S.R.T.C. MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A YEDAHALLI, KALLUR POST
HILAVALA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT-571401
9.SHRI T LINGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O THAMMAIYAPPA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO 2584,
K.S.R.T.C.MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A #2115, K.15,
BASAVESHWARA ROAD,
1ST CROSS, K.R. MOHALLA,
MYSORE-570001
10.SHRI B R MADHU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O RAJACHARI,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:3468,
K.S.R.T.C. MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A 686, LIG 2ND HUDCO,
HEBBAL, 1ST CROSS,
MYSORE-570001
11.SHRI MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O MARISWAMYGOWDA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:20281A,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A CHIKKAHANKANAHALLI,
GRAMA & POST
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
12.SHRI M S KRISHNOJIRAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O M.S. SUBBARAO,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:2864,
K.S.R.T.C.MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/AT# 177, 8TH MAIN,
4
1ST STAGE, HEBBAL,
MYSORE-570001
13.SHRI H M LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O MADDAPPA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 3143,
K.S.R.T.C.MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A HOSUR AND POST,
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571111
CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571313
14.SHRI U B RAGHUPATHY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O BASVARAJU,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 3504,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A RAMAGONDANAHALLI AND POST,
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT-577002
15.SHRI G N NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE NARASHIMAIAH,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:1611,
K.S.R.T.C. MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/AT #1969/1, 8TH CROSS,
MARUTHI TENT ROAD,
JANATHA NAGAR, MYSORE-570001
16.SHRI R SHIVASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMANANJAIAH,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO.3423,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A KEMPAIAYANA HUNDI GRAMA
& POST, T NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570001
17.SHRI H M KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O MUDDEGOWDA,
5
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:2413,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A #205/1, 1ST CROSS,
1ST MAIN, SRI KRISHNA NAGAR,
YERAGANAHALLI, MYSORE-570001
18.SHRI H P UMESH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O PRAKASH H.T,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 3370,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A HEBBAL KOPPALU & POST,
HEBBAL HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-570001
19.SHRI S RAMU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O CHELUVEGOWDA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 3121,
K.S.R.T.C. MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/AT #102, 5TH CROSS,
B.M.C NAGAR, METAGALLI,
MYSORE-570001
20.SHRI S S SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:1255,
K.S.R.T.C.MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/AT # 735, 10TH MAIN,
1ST STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR,
MYSORE-17
21.SHRI AMASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 1375,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/AT # 318, 2ND CROSS
YERAGANAHALLI, MYSORE-570001
6
22.SHRI ERANNA S PATIL
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O SANGAVAGOWDA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 191A,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/AT # 53, NEW BAMBOO BAZAR,
MEDHAR BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
MYSORE-570001
23.SHRI ASADULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O MOHADEEN KHAN,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 2942,
K.S.R.T.C.MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/AT # 149, 5TH MAIN,
1ST STAGE, 6TH CROSS,
RAJEEVNAGAR, MYSORE-570001
24.SHRI B K SOMASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O B N KRISHNEGOWDA,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO: 18458,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT
R/A CHIKKAGRAMA
SHRAVANABELAGOLA & POST
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
25.SHRI M S RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDHARAJU,
W/AS CONDUCTOR,
BADGE NO:16457A,
K.S.R.T.C MYSORE CITY TRANSPORT,
R/A # 2197, C.H. 32, 4TH CROSS,
ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE-570001
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADV., FOR
M/S.S B MUKKANNAPPA & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.,)
7
AND
1.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
CENTRAL OFFICES,
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027
2.THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER
CENTRAL OFFICES,
KSRTC, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027
3.THE DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC OFFICER
CENTRAL OFFICES,
KSRTC,K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027
4.THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, MYSORE URBAN DIVISION,
MYSORE-570001
... RESPONDENTS
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NOS.37766/12, 37769/12, 37771/12, 37775/12,
37778/12, 37782/12, 37783/12, 37784/12, 37785/12,
37789/12, 37791/12, 37792/12, 37794/12, 37795/12,
37796/12, 37797/12, 37799/12, 37800/12, 37801/12,
37802/12, 37806/12, 37808/12, 37809/12, 37810/12 &
37811/12 DATED 26/03/2013.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
8
JUDGMENT
D.H.WAGHELA, CJ (Oral)
1. The appellants have sought to call into question order dated 26.03.2013 in Writ Petition Nos.37766-37811/2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court. The grievance of the appellants/petitioners was against transfer from one work place to another work place and the decision of the management to effect such transfer was alleged to be arbitrary, whimsical and calculated to victimize the employees. The simple and only issue raised before learned Single Judge was as to whether the impugned orders of transfer were due to administrative exigency and in the interest of administration of the institution or whether they could be said to be mala fide or punitive.
2. After extensive reference to the background of facts, it is found by learned Single Judge and not disputed in the arguments before us that the uniform action of transfer of 49 employees by the respondent from one district to the other adjoining districts was based on the information that all the petitioners/appellants were indulging in certain acts of misconduct and misusing the funds of the corporation and in order to prevent repetition of such acts of 9 misconduct and for ensuring the interest of the corporation, an imminent step was required to ensure that the leakage was plugged. Neither before learned Single Judge nor in the present appeals, is there even an argument that the management did not have the right to transfer its employees from one division or district to another division or district. The only argument harped upon on behalf of the appellants is that, although disciplinary actions have also been initiated against the appellants, it was subsequent to the orders of transfer and to that extent, the transfer amounted to punishment before an enquiry.
3. However, having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we concur with the finding in the impugned order that the orders of transfer, in the given facts and circumstances, could not be characterized as punitive or mala fide or calculated to victimize the appellants. In the peculiar facts of the case, the management would have been justified in suspending the employees concerned and the action of transferring the employees pending enquiry was in fact a lenient and convenient mode of ensuring the continued employment of the employees and prevention of 10 any mischief or tampering with the record, where enquiries were required to be conducted. Thus, the undisputed power to transfer, having not been proved to have been misused nor to have been exercised in any arbitrary manner, the Court would not have been justified in interfering with such managerial action of the employer. Therefore, the appeals are summarily dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE bkv