Karnataka High Court
Sri.G.V.Hugar vs The Divisional Controller on 28 February, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.4969/2015 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.G.V.HUGAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE VEERAPPA,
NO.464, 64TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MUKKANNAPPA S B & SRI.G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVS.)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC
BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION,
KIMCO COMPLEX,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 026. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.H R RENUKA, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DTD.29.8.2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL.
LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.35/09 VIDE ANNEX-
E TO THE W.P. AND ETC.,.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner joined the services of the respondent as a conductor in 1982 and thereafter he has been confirmed in the said post. On 20.11.2008, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet that he did not issue ticket to three passengers and not collected the fare of Rs.25/- each, which amounts to serious misconduct. It is also stated that the petitioner had a history of 125 such cases.
2. On service of charge sheet, the petitioner made representation in the form of objection that there were only 31 passengers, he had issued tickets and collected fare from all 31 passengers. However, contrary to it, the Inspecting Authority found 40 passengers of which three passengers were not issued tickets.
3. Enquiry has been held and the petitioner has been dismissed from service in the year 2009.
3
4. The order of dismissal was subject matter before the Labour Court, Bengaluru in ID No.35/2009. The Labour Court held domestic enquiry as fair and proper. It was the case of the petitioner that enquiry has not been properly conducted and evidence of WW-1 and WW-2 has been erroneously held contrary to each other. The petitioner who was examined as WW-1 has deposed that there were only 31 passengers and as against that the Inspecting Authority recorded as if there were 40 passengers. WW-2 who is the driver deposed that before Harohalli stop, three passengers boarded the bus despite conductor resisted not to board the bus. This piece of evidence of WW-2 has been taken as contradictory to evidence of WW-1. When the evidence of WW-1 and WW-2 is that there were only 31 passengers and not 40 passengers, the said charge has not been proved. Though sufficient evidence in the form of WW-1 and WW-2 is available, the Labour Court has erred in forming an opinion that guilt is proved.
5. It is further submitted that charge sheet reveals that there was history of 125 cases of this nature, no documents were produced, the same could not have been considered. The 4 punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of offence. Hence the order of the Labour Court is to be quashed and direction to be issued to reinstate the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for respondent Corporation submits to dismiss this writ petition. The charges are very serious in nature. Domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper and petitioner is found to be guilty. Therefore, there is no much scope for this Court to interfere and modify the punishment. It is submitted that Labour Court passed an order in 2011 and the said order has been challenged with a delay of more than 3 years. It shows the petitioner is not diligent and on the ground of delay and laches alone the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press the ground relating to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the departmental enquiry, charges leveled against the petitioner are held to have been proved. The petitioner had a history of 125 cases earlier, which is a part of the record. The domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.25608/2005) dated 5 11.4.2007 between Depot Manager, APSARTC Vs., B Swamy) that if he is a dishonest in performance of his duties, is guilty of serious misconduct and gravity of misconduct cannot be minimized by the fact that he was not earlier caught indulging in such a dishonest act. The Labour Court also referred judgment of this Court reported in 2005(2) Kar.L.J.541 between Divisional Controller, North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Chikkodi Vs., Govindrao Shindhe), 2003 (3) Kar. L J 445 between BMTC, Bangalore Vs., K R Mahalingaiah & another and 2004 (6) Kar. LJ 493 (SC) between Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Hubli Vs., A T Mane and held that when guilt is proved, the Labour Court cannot interfere on the ground of disproportionate punishment.
8. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when a misconduct of not issuing ticket is proved, it is a serious misconduct and any sympathy shown on the ground of disproportionate punishment is allowing persons to continue the same offence in future also. In the best interest of the State and public, this is not a case for interference.
6
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd