Writ Petition No. 35333 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:564 WP No. 35333 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 35333 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. RAMKRISHNAPPA, S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT GUMMAREDDY HALLI, SOMENAHALLI POST, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. (BY SRI SHEKAR L, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR-575201. (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.3.2017 ON ISSUE NO.1 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 28.7.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, CHIKKABALAPUR IN I.D.23/2016 VIDE ANNEX-B TO W.P AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:564 WP No. 35333 of 2018 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
Legal Reasoning
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 27.03.2017 in I.D.No.23/2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chikkaballapur, wherein on a preliminary issue relating to validity of the Departmental enquiry, the learned District Judge has held that the Departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent/employer is a valid enquiry. 3. The petitioner is also questioning the order dated 28.07.2017 in the aforementioned proceeding, wherein an award is passed rejecting the claim petition filed by the workman, who had invoked Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Departmental enquiry was concluded hurriedly without providing an opportunity to the petitioner/delinquent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:564 WP No. 35333 of 2018 employee to defend his case. It is his submission that after the closure of the evidence, the authority ought to have posted the matter for the defence statement and defence evidence, if any. However, on the day, when the petitioner was absent, the evidence of the presenting officer was recorded and on the same day, the case was posted for orders, even without hearing the arguments. Thus he would contend that there is a serious procedural lapse, which resulted in denial of opportunity to the petitioner to defend the proceedings initiated against him. Thus he would contend that the order on preliminary issue is erroneous. 5. In the alternative, he would also contend that the finding on issue No.2 and on the merits of the matter is also erroneous as the learned District Judge has failed to appreciate the materials on record in a proper perspective and important evidence placed on record, have been completely overlooked. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:564 WP No. 35333 of 2018 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/employer would contend that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity before the Disciplinary Authority. Assuming that there was a procedural lapse, the petitioner ought to have moved an application to re-open the case with a request to enable him to file defence statement and to lead evidence and he having not availed such opportunity, is not entitled to raise objection relating to procedure followed by the authority in conducting the disciplinary enquiry. It is also the contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent that petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for 231 days and he has already faced 28 disciplinary enquiries and on all occasions, minor penalty has been imposed on the petitioner, as such there is no scope to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:564 WP No. 35333 of 2018 8. The records would indicate that on 25.07.2015, witness on behalf of the employer was examined. Admittedly, on that day, petitioner was not present before the enquiring authority. Thereafter, the proceeding was concluded and notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the finding of the enquiry officer, to which the petitioner replied. Thereafter, the penalty of dismissal was imposed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1971. By referring to the said Regulations, he would contend that after the evidence of the presenting officer, the case should have been posted for defence statement, if any, on behalf of the delinquent employee. The said procedure admittedly is not followed. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that once the notice was issued to the delinquent employee intimating the finding of the enquiry, the delinquent employee had an - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:564 WP No. 35333 of 2018 opportunity to move the application to re-open the case, that lapse on the part of the delinquent employee by itself would not cure the procedural lapse on the part of the enquiring officer. Since the Regulation mandates that an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to file defence statement, which was not done, this Court is of the view, that the procedural lapse has vitiated the proceeding. Under these circumstances, the District Court could not have held that Disciplinary proceeding is conducted in accordance with law. 10. The learned District Judge is swayed away by the fact that notice was issued to the petitioner before conducting the Disciplinary enquiry and before imposing the penalty. Mere issuance of notice by itself will not take care of other procedural defects which have vitiated the enquiry. 11. It is noticed from the judgment in the case of SRI RAJANNA VS. MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC in W.P.No.12639/2005, which is cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:564 WP No. 35333 of 2018 held that once the defence statement is filed, the matter has to be posted for evidence of the delinquent employee. In this case, though it is noticed that the defence statement is not filed, what is required to be noticed is that the case is not posted for filing defence statement and no opportunity is granted to file the defence statement. Thus the principle laid down in the aforementioned judgment would apply to this case. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that finding on preliminary issue wherein in terms of the order dated 27.03.2017, the District Court has held that the enquiry was properly conducted has to be interdicted and accordingly the said order is quashed. 13. Since the disciplinary enquiry was not conducted by following the procedure, the final award dated 28.07.2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chikkaballapur, is also quashed and the matter is remitted to the District Court, Chikkaballapur to consider the case afresh in accordance with law. Petitioner and the respondent are - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:564 WP No. 35333 of 2018 permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 14. However, it is also required to be noticed that the petitioner has also contributed to an extent for the remand order as he has not moved the application in re-opening the case before the Disciplinary Authority and it is also noticed that he remained absent when the case was listed for enquiry. Under these circumstances, the petitioner shall also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. 15. Payment of cost is a condition precedent for the petitioner to contest the dispute before the District Court. 16. Hence the following :
Decision
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order dated 27.03.2017 on Issue No.1 vide Annexure-A and the impugned award dated - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:564 WP No. 35333 of 2018 28.07.2017 passed in I.D.No.23/2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, vide Annexure B, are set aside. iii. The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. iv. The matter is remitted to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, for fresh consideration, by allowing the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claim. iv. The petitioner and respondent shall appear before the District Court on 30.01.2025 without any further notice from the District Court. v. Registry to send back the records forthwith. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT:VN