Writ Petition No. 44918 of 2014 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4180 WP No. 44918 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 44918 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: NAGARAJU, S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, CONDUCTOR, BADGE NO.3518, K.S.R.T.C, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN. (BY SRI SUNDARESH H C, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C. HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573201. (BY SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE IN REF. NO.121/2005 DATED 26.12.2011 VIDE ANN- A, AND FURTHER ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENT TO INCREMENTS OF THE RESTORE THE WITHHOLDING PETITIONER AND TO GRANT ALL MONETARY BENEFITS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4180 WP No. 44918 of 2014 ORAL ORDER Heard. 2. This petition is filed by employee of respondent- corporation. The petitioner is assailing the award dated 26.12.2011 in Reference No.121/2005 on file of Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru. In terms of the said award, Reference filed by the petitioner was rejected. 3. The petitioner is the employee of respondent/corporation working as a conductor. It is alleged that on 08.05.2004, he was on duty on route from Dharmastala to Bengaluru. The officers of the respondent/corporation intercepted the bus at Hassan and found that the petitioner was in possession of few punched tickets. Accordingly, the charge memo was issued and initiated action. 4. The petitioner is participated in disciplinary enquiry. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued to the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4180 WP No. 44918 of 2014 petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority held that the charges are proved and accepted the report and imposed the penalty of withholding one increment permanently. The said penalty is questioned before the Labour Court. The parties are permitted to lead evidence. The parties led their evidence. After necessary evidence, the Labour Court has found that the respondent/corporation has established the case against the petitioner and accordingly, Reference is rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court has not appreciated the evidence on proper prospective and erroneously upheld the order of the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charges are not established by the respondent/Corporation considering the materials on record in due process. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation would contend that offence memo was issued to the petitioner on 08.05.2004 which is marked at Ex.M21. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4180 WP No. 44918 of 2014 petitioner/employee did not respond to the said offence memo and he has not replied immediately and replied on 10.06.2004 after lapse of one month, denying the charge made against him. 7. The Labour Court has held that respondent/corporation has established seized tickets were in custody of the petitioner. It is noticed from Ex.M21 offence memo, that certain number of punched tickets have been seized from the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner has signed on the said offence memo. The Labour Court has noticed that the reply to the offence memo is issued after one month. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court has held that charges levelled against the petitioner are established. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has replied to the charge memo. Merely because he has not replied to the offence memo, it does not mean that he has admitted the guilt. The offence memo as can be seen does not contemplate any reply to be given - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4180 WP No. 44918 of 2014 within a specified period. In addition to that, the offence memo produced and marked would find the signature of the petitioner/employee taken only as an acknowledgment for having served the copy of the memo. 9. Since, the petitioner has disputed the allegations levelled against him and denied the charges against him, it is for the management to establish the charge. No doubt, the respondent/Corporation has produced 14 panched tickets alleged to have been recovered from the custody of the petitioner. But the petitioner has disputed the recovery from his custody. Under these circumstances, the respondent/Corporation was required to lead an independent evidence to establish the alleged recovery. 10. It is relevant to note that the enquiry officer has held that the charges are not proved and the report is submitted to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has issued a dissenting note and issued a show cause notice. The basis for issuing dissenting note is that the petitioner is said to have been found guilty on 31 occasions earlier. That cannot be the basis for the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4180 WP No. 44918 of 2014 disciplinary authority to say that the charges are proved. In the absence of any other material to indicate that the charges are proved, the disciplinary authority was not justified in imposing the penalty holding that the charges are proved. 11. Thus the petitioner approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court again after going through the evidence, has upheld the punishment imposed on the petitioner only on the premise that the petitioner has not issued reply to the offence memo. As already noticed, non issuance of reply to the offence memo by itself is not a ground to hold that the offences alleged are established and it is also forthcoming that no evidence is led except the evidence of author of Ex.M21, offence memo to substantiate the contention that the panched tickets are recovered from the custody of the petitioner. Admittedly, driver is not examined or any of the passengers is not examined. There is no independent witness to substantiate the case of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court erred in rejecting - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4180 WP No. 44918 of 2014 the Reference. At the same time, disciplinary authority also erred in imposing the penalty over turning the finding of the enquiry officer without there being any material to hold that the finding of the enquiry officer is erroneous. Hence, the following; i.
Decision
The writ petition is allowed. ORDER ii. The award dated 26.12.2011 in Reference No.121/2005 is set-aside. iii. The penalty imposed on the part of the respondent is also set-aside. iv. The petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25