Karnataka High Court
Ramanna S vs The Management Of on 29 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.17971 OF 2012 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
RAMANNA S.
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT C/O KRISHNAPPA ,
BEHIND ESWARA TEMPLE,
A.N.K. ROAD,
DEVANGANAGAR,
DODDABALLAPUR,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.B. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND THE MANAGEMENT OF
CHAYA
Location: High
M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
Court of Karnataka MANAGEMENT
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 076
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 09.09.2010 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF.
NO.58/2006 AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE HIM IN TO THEIR SERVICE WITH
FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, AND / OR TO PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the Award
dated 09.09.2010 in Ref. No.58/2006 (Annexure-A) on the file
of III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, rejecting the Reference.
2. It is the case of the petitioner, in nutshell that, the
petitioner was working as a Driver with the respondent -
Management and the respondent - Management has issued the
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
Articles of Charges dated 10/18.07.1986 (Annexure-B) with the
statement of imputations of misconduct on the part of the
petitioner, alleging that the petitioner has suppressed certain
vital facts and furnished false information regarding his
antecedents while joining the service. Petitioner has filed reply
to the same, however, the respondent - Management having
not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the
petitioner, conducted the Departmental Enquiry against the
petitioner. In the Domestic Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found
the petitioner guilty with charges and as such, the Disciplinary
Authority, having taken note of the findings of the Enquiry
Officer, dismissed the petitioner from service on 20.04.1987
(Annexure-C). The Appeal preferred by the petitioner against
the order of dismissal before the Board of Governors of the
respondent - Management came to be dismissed and as such,
the petitioner has approached the Government seeking
reference of the dispute. Pursuant to the order dated
02.11.2006 passed by the State Government, reference was
registered as Ref.No.58/2006 before the Labour Court. The
Labour Court, after considering the material on record, by its
Award dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure-A), dismissed the claim
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
petition filed by the petitioner and as such, reference was
rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioner has
presented this Writ Petition.
3. I have heard Sri. K.B. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Management.
4. Sri. K.B. Narayana Swamy, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that, the petitioner was appointed as a
Driver in the respondent - Management and an enquiry was
initiated against the petitioner for suppressing the information
relating to his past service as a Police Constable in the Home
Department and also working at Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. It
is submitted by the learned counsel that, the petitioner has
provided the relevant material at the time of filing of the
application and same was drawn by the Officer-in-Charge
erroneously and further the petitioner has signed the same with
good faith without looking into the contents of the information
and therefore it is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, that the said aspect of the matter was not
considered by the Labour Court. It is also the contention of the
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by inviting to the
statement of Articles of Charges at Annexure-B that, the
petitioner never withheld the vital information from the
respondent - Management and has resigned from the post of
Constable on 25.06.1983 and was also working as a Driver in
HAL and these facts could not be a basis to consider for issuing
the imputation of charges against the petitioner and therefore,
sought for interference of this Court.
5. It is further submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that, there was no justification for the
respondent - Management to impose major punishment of
dismissal from service on the sole ground of not providing the
information about working with the Department of Police and
HAL and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel referred to
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
AVTAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported
in (2016) 8 SCC 471; in the case of RAJU RAMSING
VASAVE Vs. MAHESH DEORAO BHIVAPURKAR AND
OTHERS reported in (2008)9 SCC 54; in the case of
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
Vs. ANIL KANWARAYA reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136 and
in the case of PAVAN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
reported in (2022) Livelaw (SC) 441, and argued that the
imposition of the punishment of termination is harsh and
disproportionate to the allegation made against the petitioner,
and accordingly, sought of interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent - Management submitted that,
the reference was made by the Government with inordinate
delay of ten years and therefore, the Reference ought to have
been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He further
contended that, as per Ex.M19, there was a specific indication
that in the event of furnishing any false information with regard
to previous antecedents or suppressing any material relating to
past services, such employee would be liable for termination
and therefore, he contended that, as the petitioner has
suppressed a vital material information about his previous
employment and antecedents and further, as the petitioner
obtained the employment by playing fraud on the respondent -
Management and therefore, no sympathy be extended to the
petitioner herein and accordingly, by referring to the finding
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
recorded by the Labour Court, it is argued by Sri. Pradeep
Sawkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -
Management that no interference is called for by exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. In order
to buttress his arguments, Sri. Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent - Management, refers to
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. CHITRA
VENKATA RAO reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557, in the case of
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS Vs. BHUPENDRA
SINGH in Civil Appeal No.8546-8549 of 2024 reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 and contended that, the petitioner
is not entitled for misplaced sympathy. He further argued that,
as the reasons assigned by the Labour Court is on merits of the
case and also it is concluded in the Departmental Enquiry that
the petitioner has suppressed the material facts with regard to
his past service in the Police Department as well as at HAL and
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for relief in this Writ
Petition. It is also the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent - Management that the
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
suppression of truth and making false representation at the
time of entering into service is a serious charge against the
petitioner herein and therefore, it is contended that, this Court
cannot sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the
Labour Court and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ
Petition.
7. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner was appointed as a temporary Driver with the
respondent - Management and thereafter the service of the
petitioner was confirmed with effect from 01.04.1986. The
respondent - Management, having taken note of the fact that
the petitioner has suppressed the material information in the
application filed seeking appointment and has committed
misconduct and thereby issued the Articles of Charges as per
Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. Imputation of charges at
Annexure-B indicates that the petitioner has suppressed some
vital facts and furnished false information regarding his
antecedents and by this act of omission, the respondent -
Management arrived at a conclusion that, petitioner has
committed an offence in contravention of Rule 11.3(i)(a) and
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
(c) and (ii) read with Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The
petitioner has submitted explanation with regard to allegation
referred to above and same was rejected by the Disciplinary
Authority by appointing the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry
Officer, after completion of the enquiry, submitted the report to
the Disciplinary authority holding that the charges levelled
against the petitioner have been proved. Thereafter, the
respondent - Management, after complying with the issuance of
second show-cause notice, dismissed the petitioner from
service on 20.04.1987 (Annexure-C). The appeal preferred by
the petitioner against the punishment awarded by the
Disciplinary Authority came to be rejected by the
Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed
W.P.No.11317/1987 before this Court and this Court disposed
of the Writ Petition with a direction to the petitioner to seek
reference of his dispute through the State Government and as
such, the dispute raised by the petitioner has reached the
Labour Court in Ref. No.58/2006. The Labour Court, after
considering the material on record, vide Award dated
09.09.2010 (Annexure-A), rejected the reference, which is
impugned in this Writ Petition. The charges levelled against the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
petitioner was that the petitioner has suppressed the material
information about his service in the State of Karnataka as a
Constable and thereafter worked at HAL. Though it is stated by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
aforementioned information is inconsequential in so far as the
appointment of the petitioner with the respondent -
Management as a Driver, however, the perusal of the finding
recorded by the Labour Court would indicate that, the petitioner
has not only suppressed the aforementioned information about
his previous employment as Police Constable and Driver at
HAL, on the other hand, petitioner has provided the false
information at the time of making application seeking
appointment with the respondent - Management. Perusal of the
antecedent record of the petitioner would indicate that, the
petitioner was involved in an accident resulting in death of a
pedestrian and was convicted by a competent Court in
C.C.No.65/1983 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Bengaluru. The said aspect was concealed by the petitioner
about his conviction in a criminal case is contrary to the Rules
of the respondent - Management. In that view of the matter,
taking into consideration the assessment of the evidence made
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
by the Labour Court, I am of the view that, the Labour Court,
taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on
record, particularly with regard to the discussion made at
paragraph 14 to 21 and 24 rightly rejected the claim petition
filed by the petitioner, consequently rejected the reference in
Ref.No.58/2006, made by the petitioner.
8. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AVTAR
SINGH (supra) and PAVAN KUMAR (supra), however, the
factual aspects on record in the aforementioned case is
contrary to the facts on record and therefore, the Writ Petition
deserves to be dismissed accordingly. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of CHITRA VENKATA RAO (supra) at paragraph
Nos.21 to 23, held as follows:
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with
departmental inquiries has come up before this
Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court
in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC
1723 : (1964) 3 SCR 25 : (1964) 2 LLJ 150] . First,
there is no warrant for the view that in considering
whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct
charged against him, the rule followed in criminal
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
trials that an offence is not established unless proved
by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the
satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule
be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the
High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not competent to declare the order of
the authorities holding a departmental enquiry
invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under
Article 226 over the decision of the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry against a public
servant. The Court is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf and according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the
rules of natural justice are not violated. Second,
where there is some evidence which the authority
entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has
accepted and which evidence may reasonably
support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is
guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High
Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. The High Court
may interfere where the departmental authorities
have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a
manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice
or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the
mode of enquiry or where the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
some considerations extraneous to the evidence and
the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to
be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where
the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The
departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is
otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and
if there is some legal evidence on which their
findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of
that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted
to be canvassed before the High Court in a
proceeding for a writ under Article 226.
22. Again, this Court in Railway Board,
representing the Union of India, New
Delhi v. Niranjan Singh [(1969) 1 SCC 502 : (1969)
3 SCR 548] said that the High Court does not
interfere with the conclusion of the disciplinary
authority unless the finding is not supported by any
evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person
could have reached such a finding. In Niranjan Singh
case this Court held that the High Court exceeded its
powers in interfering with the findings of the
disciplinary authority on the charge that the
respondent was instrumental in compelling the shut-
down of an air compressor at about 8.15 a.m. on
May 31, 1956. This Court said that the Enquiry
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
Committee felt that the evidence of two persons that
the respondent led a group of strikers and compelled
them to close down their compressor could not be
accepted at its face value. The General Manager did
not agree with the Enquiry Committee on that point.
The General Manager accepted the evidence. This
Court said that it was open to the General Manager
to do so and he was not bound by the conclusion
reached by the committee. This Court held that the
conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority
should prevail and the High Court should not have
interfered with the conclusion.
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari
under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The
Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The
findings of fact reached by an inferior court or
tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence
are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings.
An error of law which is apparent on the face of the
record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of
fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard
to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can
be issued if it is shown that in recording the said
finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to
admit admissible and material evidence, or had
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which
has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be
regarded as an error of law which can be corrected
by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by
the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that
the relevant and material evidence adduced before
the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led
on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from
the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S.
Radhakrishnan [AIR 1964 SC 477 : (1964) 5 SCR
64]."
9. It is also relevant to cite the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of KERALA SOLVENT
EXTRACTIONS LTD Vs. A. UNNIKRISHNAN AND
ANOTHER, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 619, wherein,
paragraph Nos. 3, 9 and 10 read as under:
"3. The appellant challenges the order dated 4-6-
1993 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 269 of 1993. The
proceedings relate to the empanelling of "badli"
workmen. One of the conditions for eligibility for
appointment was that the educational qualification of
the candidates should not be more than the 8th
standard. The respondent produced a certificate
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257
WP No. 17971 of 2012
issued by the school authorities to the effect that he
had passed the 7th standard on 15-5-1974. The
purpose of this was to show that his qualifications
were not more than the 8th standard. He,
accordingly, succeeded in having himself empanelled
as a "badli" workman. On receiving certain
complaints that the respondent had secured
employment by suppression of truth and by false
representation, the appellant issued a show-cause
notice to the respondent asking as to why action
should not be taken against him under the standing
orders. In reply the respondent admitted that he had
completed 10th standard and pleaded for sympathy.
On 3-3-1989 the appellant terminated the services of
the respondent for fraudulent misrepresentation.
****
9. Shri Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submitted, in our opinion not without justification, that the Labour Court's reasoning bordered on perversity and such unreasoned, undue liberalism and misplaced sympathy would subvert all discipline in the administration. He stated that the management will have no answer to the claims of similarly disqualified candidates which might have come to be rejected. Those who stated the truth would be said to be at a disadvantage and those who
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257 WP No. 17971 of 2012 suppressed it stood to gain. He further submitted that this laxity of judicial reasoning will imperceptibly introduce slackness and unpredictability in the legal process and, in the final analysis, corrode legitimacy of the judicial process.
10. We are inclined to agree with these submissions. In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well meant but wholly unsustainable tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability."
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257 WP No. 17971 of 2012
10. In the case of SATISH CHANDRA YADAV vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 7 SCC 536, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 61 held as follows:
"61. In the aforesaid case, this Court held that the purpose of requiring an employee to furnish information regarding prosecution/conviction, etc. in the verification form was to assess his character and antecedents for the purpose of employment and continuation in service; that suppression of material information and making a false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution and conviction had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee; and that where it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry. This Court also made it clear that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer."
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49257 WP No. 17971 of 2012
11. Recently, in identical circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BHUPENDRA SINGH (supra) (at paragraph No.24), had an occasion to consider the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the Judgment of the Tribunal in a Departmental Enquiry Proceedings, has held that the High Court is not a Court of Appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, I am of the view that, the petitioner has not made out a case for interference.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63