B C Krishnappa S/O Chikkathimmaiah vs The Chief Traffic Manager Bmtc on 10 March, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]
Karnataka High Court

B C Krishnappa S/O Chikkathimmaiah vs The Chief Traffic Manager Bmtc on 10 March, 2011

Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

EN THE HIGH CCURT O? KARi\l§TAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE lam BAY OF M;i\RCH, 20143«..."T»- v.,_

BEFORE

ms HONBLE MR. JUSTECE A.N: VEE'§§jC3OPA.--t;X' _   

WRIT ?ETITION NO.6590/20133{.L§;~«E{Sfl*TC) " :f-..__  7

BETWEEN:

B.C.Krishr1appa, 
S/0. Chékkathimmaiah;  
Aged about 45 years, "  
C,/0. ChannabasaVvaradhya ,'  V
Chikkanahalii,  g  %  ~ 
Sooiikere P055,      . 
Kengeri Ho;£)E'I,"'  "    »
Bangalore ?~._56iQ O60I %  t *

 ~~~~        PETITIONER
(By Srj M.C_.Bas.aya3raJLa.,VAcEv._) -

AND:

The :Chief Tfaffic' i'wf.!'ara..":'i-g(=_'=}'..,
B.NI';T.C.) U

'  ., {jqe r'1trai~.""0ffVices, K. Eﬂioad,
' Sh"a.nth§n'ag'ar*; _

  @Ba:jg«"-a::>;=eA  550» 027.

(H;-z__Snjvt.~ l}{',i'.RA;Renuka, Adm)

 RESPONDENT

. "F.hais writ petition is ﬂied under Artécies 226 8: 227 of

 ACb%§*:.stitution of Endia, praying to quash the impugned
-.,qawa.rd passed by the III Addi, Labour Court, Bangamre in
I§.D.No.109/2905, dated 13.11.2009, vide Armexure: «A t0

 V. .._..the WP.



ix.)

This petition cerning en for erelirhirrery hearing in 'B9
group this day, the Court made the feiiowihg: 

Ciﬁﬁﬁﬁ

The petitioner/werkrrian was ei  H

respondent~Corporetion. The pe'ti't'ie'r*iier "eat ,'._tirrie¥ of;

entering to service with the_respe'n_d»e_nAt 

document / transfer certificate;Qbe,aretro No.'4/j3?3V??4%i',"'v}hich it

when got verified throtigh thre""Aestix:Sef:urityinstiector of
the Corporation, it was  one and
hence,  accompanied
with  of documents; and
witnesses'te..:':sdst:5in  issued, to which the
petitionerii which having been found to

be not sat'i'sfe't;tory,  dornestic enquiry was ordered, by

ap'etiin:;~ihgivi.5ri i?i.'K'r*'i's'hnappa, Retd. District Judge as the

   Two witnesses examined on behalf of the

iVi=3_nage.Fne'n_t*i"were cress--~examined. The workman aiso

 gave"hi_s1~ statement and fiied written brief. Considering the

metgzriai pieced or: record, the Enquiry Officer submitted

 the report, hoiding the charge as proved. Copy of the

E

st:



'we:

report wag furnished to the petitiorzer afang with a Show

cause notice dated 83.06.2004, to which the p_eti_t-ioeer

submitted his repiy, Finding the misconduct 

proved and Considering the gravity_af»_the _:"ni'$e~:§rfidi3'etV;*the " it

Eéscipliraary Authority passed an o:rde_jr*datenai_i

dismissing the petitioner fl"OFI>1K':§'€?_i"ViC&3§'v- --

2. The petition':e~.r'_fileduap'Ver!ai'%'tJhder'S';'1OVE(4«--A) of
Industriai Dispute Act; 1;irpm}:i1§7i§§.k_"_'3.atZ)0E.Il' Court,
Bangalore,  filed counter
statement  Three issues were
raisedgforiaaji;.i;ii§é§§iic§;ffrhe"iierscpary Officer deposed as
 M-18 were marked. The

petitio_ner got _hirnSeif"vexarriined as WW-1, The preiiminary

 was~i.ansv\re're'd"'hoidéng that, the dornestic enquiry

 proper. The petitioner having deposed

furtherV.ori'€--.Vtne issue of victimization, appreciating the

evidefaee'1~on record, it was held by the Labour Court that,

,,/.'"_,"i«5i:_e'.i'?"i'nding and conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer

and the Discipiinary Authority is welwoundeci and no

'Ev'



interference with the corieiusion was caiied for, After

examining the matter with regard to proportioheVi_iitf._of

punishment, it was heid that, the workman tif_' _

producing feke document to get» em'oiov~,%ifr7ent, '~_tiiieu

Management was justified in '»;iass'i:i.§i;  vote

dismissaii As a result, 'tihe, disotite Vwas'A..gjvES_rr2i$Sed. 

Aggrieved, the v\.iori<;ma_h has t'i_I_eE1'-.,t_hi--s_V writ'oetitionﬁ:

3. Sri  iA;ee*_r;3ed Couhsei
appearing  the petitioner
studied in V":H»:ig»ii'er Primary Schooi,
Ramotiveidiiiiy South Taiuk;
havingvyvi'-heeri  said school during the

academic i4'i,ree'ri.i,*9?I,%--7iiV with admission No.4/73, the

tra':n.s:fe.;=., certificiete "" 'having been issued by the schooi,

 o'uite'irie'dtV_dan'di._Dtoduced, was a genuine document and in

hoiddingv.dofttiierwise, the Enquiry Gfficer/Disciplinary

 Authorvity end the Labour Court have committed materiai

 error arid iliegaiity. teamed counsei submitted that, if the

__"§""C issuing authority has Committed a mistake, the





L1:

petitieeer eeiiid riei: have been inflicted with the

eunishment by the Management end that; the ,r;a*::_e*._ef

petitioner has not been cerreetiy aepreeiated 

the impugned award is bad and iiiegai. t;ee»rn:ed:"eei.:.nse:t"  

contended that, iri View ef the etiscr-i~m.i::iatery'"trea'ti:jie~et.'

adepted by the Manageme'nt;.._'tnere,_'was  ia_ji3e.i3i~_:"i.

practice and the petitioner  invvviview of
which, the Labour    the newer
under S.11--A ef_.the:.~;£'«et.arid__t;_ren'te'd'*.lgreiief. Learned
counsel   the facts and
CifCL.!!'iiSt£ifi'C'€3Sf:"{i§1.;Cisiﬁiutﬁ.   iniieugned award calis for
interfe_reri._;;eA may be granted the relief of

reinstaterneritarid 'if:{.)'fi»Sé"t'.}.,i3'€f1t§8l benefits.

it  ,.Smt'.}i;"E'<;'Renuka, Learned Counse! appearing

 fi)i'_ui§%é"'ifi§S4DOi_E%E{}$.EF1t, on the other hand would submit that,

there i$.de:teii:ed consideration of the matter by the Enquiry

 office/iisiscipimary Authority and the Labour Court. She

 Cerit:ended that, upon appreciation ef the entire evidence

  _§:sn record, the Labour Ceurt has recorded findings of fact,

i





€>

which is eat liable tie be interfered Witt: in exercise ef the
writ juriedictien. Learned ceunsei painted eat that, the

preliminary issue having been answered in favour ef the

Management, the Labour Court though is not entitie.dVV.t-e_:'g.o

into the rrierit of the punishment impeseci,lV_:Wéti'i~!V.'jjh_ae._._:".

anaiyzed the evidence in detaii age» has"'ree§':*de'ev"the.r,i

finding that, the petitioner hae eomrriitt'ed'=.the:"'c'h'e:rge'i:i1.i_:

misceneuct and in View of the 'g_ravii:\y-..e'f theiv'V:r§§i.$ct:Vrf:_di3c:t,%
the punishment imposed beingﬁuetéfied,.'has:V.'rig_htEy not
interfered in the matter':_.V:r"i_ea"rrie{_{iv C'ouieeei!._by referring to

the materiai on record,-su»brniti;e;i.__that,'Lathes one and the

oiiiy concius-ioii"vfih_ii:i1_t;e_n~--«.be -'arrived at in the matter,

having beeinliihe ene'iVwh:i:&'h4'the Labour Court has arrived

 at, r3,o_§f'ig'rounci eS<irs_tSV foriinterference in the matter.

r Q21'

 perused the record. The point for
coneijderatiengiswl:
W'bVe:'her the impugned award calls for interference?

V' =  The Asst. Security Inspector at the Cerporatiori

  haze deposed in the enquiry and his gepeeitien ie at Ex.M--4i

':2
 /
/



Sré Rareekrishnaiah, Education CO-Otéiﬁatﬂf' in the office of

EEG, Eangatore ides deeesed and his depesitlen is fattrt-i§:;.¥}fé~

5. The report given by the Head Master at  _

Ex.M~6. Ex.Mw8 is the §"E3§}Ot't gt  

erdinatort Ex.EvE~9 is the iettertef thefiv 

Officer, em/:~10 is the reeczrt su't:.r;nitted  

Security Inspector, E><,14  Vd'isd:utVed transfer
certificate. EXKMAEE 'A'_tVtie!ets:'0_§».»..tCherge,V"A é»<,M--16 is
the repiy submitted  

7.  refers to the
eviderjftettwb're:u5ght:::3§'ri   domestic enquiry and
upon  the said report holding

the Vcharged V_'h1.iscoﬁ'duVc't'x as proved was submitted by

  M\;~;k.!§':1,z._tc> the Discipimary Authority.

 petitioner does not dispute the fact of

sut§mit'tit1g"tEx.M~14 at the time of entering into service. A

  'pet.r..usaVVE"'ef E><.M~14 shows that, the admission to the schooi

2*-rxztéstj during the academic year 197'3~74 ie, on

V' ""23.05.1974. The admission number has been shown as

29'

TV



4,i?3~?4. E><KM«~12 shOws the trangfer certificate nurjwber

OS «f1f73~"?4 arm the adméssicm numbar 33 4/73--74g'~.f¥fE<:¢2é'.=<§

is appreciatien Of the documents and the 

witnesses, who deposed in the er:q_u.imry__OefOré  '

Officer. There E3 detaiied re»ap;:>reC'i:at§O'_h Of iir:._e"C1O'cur:{€--rT§E's:fj

ever; by the Labour Court,  pOss'iﬁng. _t1T'*;§ A'i«:{f£'¥{.3IrE§,'*i;E€€3i
award. The Labour Cuurt,  "O.:,.fa<}r1»finding
Court, has recorded catVe':;,«rr§'rica«;r _Ex.f4~14 is not
genuine and it cices'  as availabfe

in the original.  ~   

9,' %%%% ' 1':3.:iivf,'VM2§:'Hﬁ.i§A»S'HTRA'vVV'V'VVSTATE BOARD OF
SECONDv}3rR\Y. AND:'~:¥:';,;:<3'JH4Efzr-QQECONOARY EDUCATION vs.

:<,s.GAOrs;OH1%"*&V%OTV!%:ERs,'"reported in 1991(2) scc 716,

 «.s,rgith?rég:g~r:c3 {O thOV$ta'miard of proof in a domestic enquiry,

Vii; i*1.j-35 ilxéc-:«:1 "né'ici: as folfows:

A  If._ ;1fs_s {E1125 well .3e1E'1e.d Iaw that: strict: rL1E€:s Of the

E_Zv1}OI<;.>I1(:«:% Act, arid {he staxadezrd of proof <:nv1'.saged

AA '°---1}f1er'ei.1'} do not appéy in d€:pa.rtmeI11.211 procteedings OT
 ~dm1'1<-3ss%;,i_c %i':'ibu1'121.1. It is O§)€33 it) the 2'.u;1th.O1'ii::'r3s3 LO

1'ec:<:éive and p}z1C£é on 2*ec()rd all the m-":Oessa«11"y, reievzizizi,
§'".4.



9

{T{)§_._§€3i'iI 2-mci 2"z(?{:epElab1C 2'11;-;.1,o1'I:~?.I fa<:1.S i'h()L.1ggh noli
proved $sI§'i(ti.Iy In <.>o2'1formi1.y wézlli mt: ii1x:idor1(%e Act.
'E'h€: :o1}.a:',€;"i21i :'m.2s'§ bu ;._,§c?:'1'1;;;I:'"Ic 2;"12E€§ i'"€';'.IEi'v"c'3.'i"iL Io 'iI':ze
faeI.s;~; in issue' In ;__};1'avo (,'.E1S€'.£§S like iorgezry. fi*;mc§.

<:o:1spira1<:y, misappropria1.icm. air. .'.~'3€.1d(JI1f1'"~,{:I'§.1f€f£f1.

ov'§.c1<~:.a.1c<5: woulci be avai.IabIe. Only the <:I:(§iii1;3'1_*a._§1'E;afI

e.v';£Io11Cc would I'u:*1'1ish the proof. In O3..1I°'._CO}%ISICI€!'é(§~.7

View i:1.fo:'o:1:7e fmm. the ('3\«'.1'.d'C?>1A§M(?€~"gli"It"'_,'I c:§.3'ot.;-Insi.ariCeé~.,

11'1L:.s*i. I36. (:a1feI12.11y C1ISI.I11§__§;t.1§Sh€3dﬂ'I~1'€?I{11"'{T{}I"Ijé(§€"Lii7:€'iC13' or-_I

s;3ec:uI.21't'.i(>1"1. The 11'1i;1c1V.o1s'_ pr(:1'i'e_ to tak.o"IA_o}<:o_sur7f: {,0 

£.z.dapi' cirCu:I1st.21:1ces t,o"~,oio'1r,: a1noI.hIo1*V.o  ("IR-*IV<~:r1 in
str21ir1i11.g them 21 ,.1;'1i.Io  Io ';f.(_)AE'IVIA}.'§ parés of
one (:<:>1111e<':.E.ed wI1'<9I.Vc}i'.  '1oi§s'i'.v..'oeIovidenoe direct". or
ci:~<:un1sI.a.1'1Ii21I to dHocvII:.:.c_;Ve ..ijVor§Ies;~§a1V;¥3,..,'.j*;§_IIoreI1Ces in proof

of the I'21_c.**;$;;_i'r"I;   rio inferen<:es unless

I;h€I'E .211%':obj_et:{.iV€_ f":»1§:1.:-3., direct or circumstantial from

\>vhicI'I-- to '  fact: which it is Sought to

esI.z1bII.S11; In  cases the other fz-1Ct:s can be

 i.11i'@r1'ed.x'as much as 159 pract.ic:a1. as if they had been

El:€.'IiLJEiII:~{ oI*.3se:'x.-*e=.c§. In other cases the inferences do not

  :'<:aso:1z21.ble probability. If there are no

 poSi:i;;faeA'oi= proveci facts. oral, doc'L1H1ent.a1jy or

Ci:-<:u'riisE:ani;.ia.§ from which the inferences €3.11 be made

i}_1__r3' r11et:hod of i.1'1.{'e1"<~31'1r:c fails and wilaf; is left; is more

 s;}r3(71.2I211I.c>:1 or C:m1}eoi:11re. '1.'1Jez*(~>foI"e, whe-::I1 an

i1'1Ik=,iremte {)fpr<)of1;'I121£. a faC,'L in dispute has been I1t'?.Id

Qf:_%'§E1I31iSI']€C1 '{'.I1<:%n% n'1u.S1, be s()me': 1'n.a.¥.1e1'iaI facztss or

 



{"iI'(?.§.§i'}'15?«§.E1§"E{?C*S or}. 1'ec<.>1'r;:§ 1"1"()1'1'§. which st1<;:h 21:1 §':':i'e1'e13c.e

could be t'§:"z1x;x,i-12¢ 'ﬁre .<.est'.z11:ciam:§ of proof :5 not proof

i3<::yi>11i:§ 1*e;:a:~so1'1z::.%3ie i:ioii'r3t "but"' the E):'i;%p<}z':£iera11t?:i:% <3?

p1"c}b21tbi1.itie:5 i.ei'icii1'1g to cizmw 21:3 i.z1ie.1'e1f1Ce that t..i.3Te"'.£T;tc¥;

mt.is~3I. be more probabie. Stiarzdard of proof C.?§I}f':{):'[f'",_b'¢3.'

put. in :1 etrait.--jac.kei f(}1"II1'L318.. No 113.51I'1(3fI'1£i:t'i~€fEﬁ... .

f(}l'IE'1i.1}é-1 (,',€)t.1_§d be 1.z;.%..1'.d on ciegree of ;i)roo§} -7i7Ef;"e%.¢§)vI°:}:b2>,t,it'e "

Vaitze ('Quid be gzmgerci i"1*tin1 i"21;i€t.:e; attic?e_c:'i1*ttz~i;m1s't2J;3{?e:~5"in".

21 gévexi case. "Fine S§.&¥..I';d£11"d of }fn.'oof_'  i,he%'--.<s_a111e 

civil czasee anti c£or12es'i.iCv'eri€J_1.':.iries-'?_, '

10. The Enquiry.AuthVor--it§f'v--an4:i' the"'i;,a.bo.i;s§r Court
have rightly considereoi"ithhehnf{at»te.r':.{;nV:ithe doctrine of
preponderance of'p._robaoViiVity'i;   the approach

to thea:rnat_tieri_..by Court is justified. The
 V  doubt has no

appiication to t.hAe'in9iatt'er.T The charged misconduct, which

 to eiiqimiy, having been estabiished, the

  cfoncitrsioh drawn by the fact finding authority,

En¢,i__iry Qfficieriand upon appreciation by the Labour Court,

 "tioes not:.taEi for interference, since there is no perversity.

  of the gravity of the proved misconéuct, the ratio

 to law iaid down in the case of we MANAGEMENT or

2%

3-K



BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRARS LEMITED VS.

PSHANMUGA PRABHU, remrted in 2009(1) LL,.33 ._ €~3f.:§{3

gquareéy appiies. The Labour Court having 

prapertionality of gaunishment, keeping   

that the workman is guitty cf §)I'()tZ:Z3.:t4JCit"_"!-g_fE.i'f4:<'Z"E¢?:.

get employment, hag r*ightIy=de.r_;"1ine{i£rid exer=.ci§,e:;:  p{;:v\r'.ér 

under S.11--A of the Act: ar1__ciLi:""-riecmce"th}§3_"'t;u$fntum of

punishment;

In the e}.»b'o\ge '_'.vie§w c31f_?<}%1e'..1i'1~;¥1'_ft~te3r', ago ground is made
out for int€érfe;.r"eriEé?..witiij'--tﬁe._ V"iAr1'i}C*-:LJg--i':ed award. The writ
petitiqiéwiév "::£;§;;:oic£':f:':;jf ﬁre?-it ari'd""'is" hereby dismissed. Ne

costs. V'

 .....
> "-7 ;.
my i,.~.==f 3 kg? 'K; __'g 4
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

B C Krishnappa S/O Chikkathimmaiah vs The Chief Traffic Manager Bmtc on 10 March, 2011

Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
