Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller Karnataka ... vs Sri R Gopala Krishna on 3 June, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
ix) THIS PEJTETIQN CGMING ON FOR HEARING THIS BAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLO\VEN€}: ' ORDER
Petitioner~Road Transport Corporpation K V' the services of the 28" respondent as driVer.__a'no¥nVWhen he was found absent frorn 7-dnty w,'itI.h'o'ui'; permission from _ IQQE:i§§9,d:2§initiated disciplinary proceeding':.by charge to which the _respondent explanation stating that from pain in the Tumkur Government hospital -at WBanga1ore K.C.GeneraI Hospitai Disciplinary authority not4.;j'beei.ng with the explanation offered, Inquiring Authority to inquire into the "charge; o%i3.0;'t;'ai"ter extending reasonabie opportunity of hearingviésiihmitted a report holding the Charge proved. ..T'he..diseipIinary authority having regard to the material hggidrtecord and evidence both orai and documentary held respondent guilty of act of misconduct of xx 4 Act held that the punishment of terrnir;{ation:~-.:frazsrrz_ service was grossly disproportionate to the. of .. misconduct proved and aceordiniglyx 21.7.2005 set~aside theV»iVorder'----A_of~ ternai1nilationl3':landfi directed reinstatement of the_:respond'ent- of service, however,» 'without.' Wag'eS;..~'Eif found medically fit. Hence tllie' the Road Transport Corporation. 4 .2'.r"-vHAeard"'the learned "Counsel for the parties and examined' impugned. Though the learned counsel 'for _the_ lpletiotlinner submits that it was an imrtjllinently ntitteasei for the labour Court to decline with the quantum of punishment in .eX'eroi"se'o_i extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 1 1-- Afiof Act, I am afraid that contention must neceéeai*ily fail. Undoubtedly there is no material on reeo.rd to establish the past record of service of the u goetitioner over alleged unauthorised abeeneeg so as to characterise the conduct ae habitual absence, a grave '<2.
rniscenduct. In the absence of which? it CE{HEO§'b:1;§£'vb€ said that the responclenfs absenceg between 16.8.1998 to 19.8.19E?t9~encI :;1%1;:gif'e§%';=;:-éi;'i net"
gross negligence. Moreever the.«ree_'ponden't's. to the Very same award Vriiisofarie as it relates to denial. of and-e.one§equentiai benefits, was rejected" iii." 2.2005.
3. In of exception can be taken to 'inrteiiference with the order of puniehrncinfj;»h3;': i*einst'e1tement with continuity of service, ' "wages. The exercise of jurisdicfion 'shown to be perverse, the irrigieugned avVar:1____Adoes not call for interference in ' ,exerci$eaofV extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article "fZ2';";7 of the» Constitution of India. Petition devoid of merit isirej es_:.°£fedf"
EEEDQEZ EH: