Karnataka High Court
The North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs S.L. Hosur on 10 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2002(92)FLR714], ILR2001KAR5539, 2002(1)KARLJ327, (2002) 3 SCT 49, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 529, (2002) 1 KANT LJ 327, (2002) 1 LABLJ 960, 2002 LABLR 173, (2002) 1 CURLR 738, (2002) 92 FACLR 714
Author: R. Gururajan
Bench: R. Gururajan
JUDGMENT R. Gururajan, J.
1. The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (the appellant) is before us, aggrieved by the order dated 15-10-1999 passed in W.P. No. 16835 of 1999.
2. The facts in brief are as under:
The appellant (for short "the Corporation") issued articles of charges to the respondent (for short "the workman") for an act of misconduct. According to the Corporation, on 9-4-1983, the workman, while on Gadag-Bombay route, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner in a state of intoxication, resulting in an accident. Just a little after at Kolhapur Junction, the passengers, frightened of danger to their lives, prevailed upon the driver to stop the bus, which was subsequently driven by another driver. The workman was subjected to medical examination and the medical examination revealed the consumption of alcohol by the workman. The articles of charges was subsequently followed by disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority found the workman guilty. The Corporation accepted the findings and after following the procedure prescribed, issued an order of dismissal on 27-10-1983. The said dismissal was taken up by way of an application under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act (Karnataka Amendment Act). It was numbered as K.I.D. No. 141 of 1988. Parties filed their respective statements. Evidence was recorded. The Labour Court ruled that the enquiry was not fair and proper. The management thereafter examined 4 witnesses in support of its case. The workman got himself examined as W.W. 1. The Labour Court, on evidence, found the charges were proved. But, however, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with a warning and denied back wages. The management challenged the said award in this Court in W.P. No. 16835 of 1999. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. The said dismissal is questioned in this appeal.
3. Heard the Counsel for the appellant and the Counsel for the respondent.
4. The Counsel for the appellant took us through the pleadings and contends that the matter requires reconsideration, in the light of a serious misconduct. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable , and the judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.N. Chawan.
5. Per contra, the Counsel for the workman supports the order. According to him, the learned Judge has deprived the back wages to the workman.
6. After hearing the parties, we have carefully perused the award and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
7. Here is a case of a drunken driver, driving a bus with full of passengers. Disciplinary proceedings ended against the workman. Matter was taken to the Labour Court and the management has led evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court in the award has noticed that "In fact, in ordinary course such person should not be allowed to drive the vehicle but unfortunately he was allowed and thereafter one of the passengers who was working as Assistant Commissioner in Maharashtra drove the vehicle and reached Karad and claimant was handed over to station in charge". The Labour Court further holds that "I am at a loss to know if the management has failed to prove the case technically though facts remain that driver is drunkard, whether such person can be continued really it is awful position and such persons should be deprived doing such duties at least, as the lives of the passengers are in the hands of such driver". Having come to these conclusions, the Labour Court, to our shock, has ordered reinstatement on the ground of repentence and the improvement. The Labour Court has also noticed that the petitioner having left the service for 16 years before, may not be in a position to drive the bus. Hence, he must be given a direct warning and he must be subjected to examination with regard to driving. After recording a finding of grave misconduct, it was not permissible for the Labour Court to interfere with punishment awarded by the Corporation. A drunken driver cannot be permitted to drive the vehicle of public Corporation. The Labour Court has noticed the seriousness of the charge and its effect on the travelling public. But, nonetheless, he has ordered reinstatement. When the same is challenged, the learned Single Judge notices that the charge is quite serious inasmuch as the respondent by such conduct would put into danger the lives of 40 to 50 passengers in the bus. Having noticed, the learned Judge refused to interfere on the ground that "nevertheless, having regard to the circumstances in which the respondent is placed as submitted by his learned Counsel, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court's acting under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, should not be interfered with, particularly when the Labour Court has directed reinstatement on the respondent being found fit". The confirmation of the reinstatement by the learned Judge, in our view, requires reconsideration by us in this appeal. The Labour Court has found that charges are serious and the same is reiterated and confirmed by the learned Single Judge. Having come to this conclusion, the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the award. The non-interference with the impugned order like present one, in our view amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 11-A does not come to the aid of those workmen, who commit serious misconducts. In the case on hand, the confirmation of reinstatement without any justifiable reasons, in our view is nothing but a mis-
placed sympathy. Such sympathy ought not to be exercised in these cases.
8. In the judgment in State of Punjab's case, supra, the Apex Court has considered a Constable drinking alcohol and becoming uncontrollable, while on duty. The Court in the said case noticed what is misconduct in para 4. We feel it necessary to quote the same:
"Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999 thus:
A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, its synonyms are misdemeanour, misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offence, but not negligence or carelessness".
Misconduct in office has been defined as:
"Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, wilful in character. The term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act".
P. Ramanatha Aiyar's "Law Lexicon", Reprint Edition, 1987 at page 821 'misconduct' defined thus.-
"The term misconduct implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment. Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude. The word misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left, except what necessity may demand and carelessness, negligence and unskillfulness are transgressions of some established, but indefinite, rule of action, where some discretion is necessarily left to the actor. Misconduct is a violation of definite law; carelessness or abuse of discretion under an indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act; carelessness, a forbidden quality of an act, and is necessarily indefinite. Misconduct in office may be defined as unlawful behaviour or neglect by a public officer, by which the rights of a party have been affected".
9. After noticing what is misconduct, the Court holds in para 8 reading as under:
"The next question is whether the single act of heavy drinking of alcohol by the respondent while on duty is a gravest misconduct. We have absolutely no doubt that the respondent, being a gunman having service revolver in his possession, it is obvious that he was on duty; while on duty he drank alcohol heavily and became uncontrollable. Taking to drink by itself may not be misconduct. Out of office hours one may take to drink and remain in the house. But being on duty, the disciplined service like police service, the personnel shall maintain discipline and shall not resort to drink or be in a drunken state while on duty. The fact is that the respondent after having had heavy drink, was seen roaming or wandering in the market with service revolver. When he was sent to the doctor for medical examination he abused the medical officer on duty which shows his depravity or delinquency due to his drinking habit. Thus it would constitute gravest misconduct warranting dismissal from service. The authorities, therefore, were justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal. The Courts below failed to properly appreciate the legal incidence and the effect of the rules".
10. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, supra, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash Chandra Sharma and Ors., State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju and Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., has held that:
"In the present case, it has been conclusively found that the respondent-driver had consciously consumed liquor while on duty and if not objected by the vigilant passengers he would have driven the bus endangering not only their lives but also lives of pedestrians and the occupants of other vehicles on the road. Certainly, it was a misconduct grave in nature which cannot be viewed with any leniency. The Courts while dealing with such misconduct on the part of the driver of heavy vehicle and that too of a public road transport Corporation which is established to ensure public safety and convenience cannot fall prey to the pleas of misplaced sympathy. Awarding of punishment has to be weighed keeping in view the interest of the public at large and the travelling passengers. The disciplinary actions are taken more as preventive measure so that it may work as an effective warning against other employees to behave befitting their duties and maintaining due discipline in the establishment.
In our opinion, what has been said by the Supreme Court regarding awarding of sentences against the drivers in criminal proceedings applies with more vigour while dealing with misconduct of such drivers in departmental proceedings. If the management is allowed to take stern action against the erring drivers found to be guilty of consuming liquor and thereby risking the lives of passengers and pedestrians, then under no situation the same should be interfered with by the Courts by showing misplaced leniency, benevolence and purported pleas of livelihood".
11. To our mind, the above judgments fully supports the case of the Corporation in the light of workman's serious misconduct and its impact on the working of the Corporation and the safety of the travelling public.
12. We are also to point out at this stage that in cases of misconduct, the Court has to taken into consideration, the various factors including the placing of the workman, the character of the organization and the impact of its order of reinstatement on general public. In the case on hand, a public Transport Corporation is directed to reinstate a drunken driver at the risk of the travelling public. Travelling public must have confidence in these public transports. The safety of the passengers has been completely given a go-by, both by the Labour Court and by the learned Single Judge, while passing the order. Any leniency in these cases would result in unwanted, unfortunate accident, resulting in loss in life of innocent public. The Courts cannot encourage such alcoholic driving to the detriment of the safe driving of the public by a public Corporation. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, we are clear in our mind that both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have committed an error in ordering reinstatement.
13. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal. The award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. We confirm the punishment. Parties to bear their respective costs.