K. V. S. Ram vs Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... on 3 September, 2012

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

K. V. S. Ram vs Bangalore Metropolitan Transport ... on 3 September, 2012

Bench: K.L. Manjunath

                           1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

                       PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH

                         AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO

          WRIT APPEAL No.390/2008 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

  K.V.S.Ram s/o Venkataramaiah,
  45 years, No.8, A.K.Colony,
  Yediyur, Bangalore.           ..         APPELLANT

       (By Advocate Sri.Lakshman Rao)

AND:

  Bangalore Metropolitan
  Transport Corporation,
  K.H.Road, Shanthinagar,'
  Bangalore. By its Chief
  Traffic Manager R/by its
  Chief Law Officer.                 ..   RESPONDENT

        (By Advocate Smt.H.R.Renuka)

                         - - - - -

     This WA is filed under Sec.4 of The
Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the order
passed in WP No.14340/2007 dated 31.12008.
                                2

     This Appeal is coming on for orders this
day, V.SURI APPA RAO J. delivered the following:


                      J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 31.1.2008 in WP No.14340/2007.

2. Respondent-corporation filed a writ petition to quash the award dated 14.2.2007 in ID No.39/2005 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore whereby the labour court modified the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority by invoking the provisions of Sec.11(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the Corporation to reinstate the appellant without back-wages and ordered for with-holding 4 increments in place of dismissal. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, corporation filed writ petition challenging the award passed by the 3 Labour Court. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the corporation on the ground that the punishment imposed by the corporation is proportionate to the proved mis- conduct against the appellant and there are no grounds to interfere with the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant filed this appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case are: Appellant was working as a driver in the respondent- corporation, he was served with articles of charges alleging that he obtained appointment order by producing false transfer certificate, appellant submitted explanation thereafter an enquiry was initiated, enquiry officer found the appellant guilty for mis-conduct. Respondent- corporation dismissed the appellant from service after considering the enquiry reports. Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed against 4 him, appellant raised a dispute before the industrial tribunal under Sec.10(4-A) of The Industrial Disputes Act in ID No.39/2005. Labour court after considering the evidence of both the parties observed that there was abnormal delay in completing the enquiry process, therefore by invoking the provisions of Sec.11-A of the Act modified the order of dismissal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, corporation filed writ petition. Learned single Judge found that though there was abnormal delay in completing the process of enquiry, punishment imposed by the corporation cannot be altered when the charge of fraud is proved. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in a similar case the corporation re-instated another employee, therefore this case also may be considered on par with the other two cases in which similar charges are framed and proved. In 5 the instant case, appellant was found guilty for producing fake school leaving certificate based on which respondent-corporation appointed as driver in the corporation. Though there was delay in completing the process of enquiry, the charge proved against the appellant is serious in nature. Appellant would not have been appointed by the respondent-corporation had he not produced false transfer certificate. Charge levelled and proved against the appellant is grave in nature, appellant produced certificate which is not issued by the concerned school thereby cheated the respondent-corporation to get employment by producing a false certificate. In that view of the matter though there was delay in concluding the enquiry, since charge levelled and proved against the appellant is serious in nature, punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is just and proper and 6 there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.

4. Appeal is therefore dismissed as there are no merits in this appeal.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

R/170912

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court