IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2574 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC ) BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.
... APPELLANT (BY SMT.RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE) AND:
S. C. KARIGOWDA SON OF CHIKKALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS DRIVER BADGE NO. 4332 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT KSRTC, BENGALURU KENDRIYA MAZDOOR SANGHA @ BMS OFFICE NO.458, O.T.C., ROAD COTTONPET, BENGALURU-560 002.
... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 04/06/2018 IN WP NO.45950/2014 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.45950 of 2014, by the which the petition was allowed in part, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties to the writ appeal would be referred to as ‘Employer’ and ‘Employee’.
3. The employer/petitioner and employee/respondent both filed W.P.No.45950 of 2014 and W.P.No.44922 of 2014, challenging the award dated 22.03.2014 in I.D.No.19 of 2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. The employee joined employer as driver and was working as such. The employee while driving the bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-8464 on 14.05.2008 from Bengaluru to Chikkamagaluru caused the accident, due to which, the bus was damaged. On the said incident, the employer instituted domestic enquiry by issuance of article of charge dated 19.07.2008. The alleged charge was that, by causing accident, the employee has caused loss to the employer-Corporation and also resulted in injuries to three passengers. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report holding the charges as proved. The enquiry report was forwarded to the employee seeking his explanation and the employee submitted his reply. On consideration of the entire material on record, the employer by order dated 16.10.2009 imposed a punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect and also ordered for recovery of Rs.10,000/- from his salary in ten installments. Aggrieved by the same, the employee raised dispute in I.D.No.19 of 2011 before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal on analyzing the evidence on record held that the charges are proved against the employee but came to the conclusion that the quantum of punishment is disproportionate and modified the punishment to that of reducing the basic pay of the employee by one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and retained the imposition of punishment of recovery of Rs.10,000/- from his salary. Aggrieved by the said order, both employer and employee filed writ petitions as stated above. The writ petitions filed by the employer was allowed modifying the punishment to that of withholding one increment with cumulative effect and dismissed the writ petition filed by the employee. Not being satisfied with the modification of the order of punishment by the learned Single Judge, the employer is in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the appeal papers.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for proved misconduct of causing accident which resulted in loss to the Corporation, the employer had imposed appropriate punishment commensurate with the charge. The Industrial Tribunal committed an error in modifying the punishment on the ground that the punishment imposed is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. The learned Single Judge also committed an error in not restoring the order of punishment imposed by the employer.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the writ appeal papers including the award passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous. The learned Single Judge in his discretion has modified the punishment of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect substituted by the Tribunal to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. The charge against the employee was that on 14.05.2008, when he was driving Volvo Bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-8464 from Bengaluru to Chikkamagalur caused accident which resulted in injury to the conductor and three passengers apart from causing loss to the Corporation. The employer examined Traffic Inspector before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate the charges leveled against the employee and marked Ex.M1 to Ex.M7 documents in support of their case. The defense of the employee was that, on that particular day, when he was driving the bus bearing registration No.KA-01/F-8464 he tried to over-take the bus bearing registration No. KA-06/F-0232 and when he noticed a lorry coming from the opposite side in the high speed, he tried to take the bus to the left and at that moment, brake did not work properly which caused accident.
7. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.M7.
On going through the FIR and the complaint, it is noticed that the theory of brake not working properly is not mentioned. The Tribunal, held that the enquiry conducted by the employer is fair and proper. Further the Tribunal, on examination of the material on record was of the opinion that the charges are proved and the punishment imposed by the employer is not commensurate with the gravity of charge and modified the punishment to that of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect and the punishment of recovery of Rs.10,000/- was retained. The Tribunal on considering the evidence of WW1 wherein he has admitted the accident, held that the defect of brake is not entered in the log sheet. Based on Ex.M5-accident report and Ex.M6-sketch of the accident scene, the Tribunal held that the defense of the employee that defective brake is not accepted. The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions raised by the parties was of the opinion that the employee being negligent is liable to pay damage caused to the bus and the punishment is required to be modified. When the charges are proved, the employee is liable for punishment. The employee has caused accident thereby causing loss to the employer by his negligent act. The drivers of the employer i.e., the Corporation, would always drive the vehicle with good number of passengers, whose life would be in their hands. As such, certain caution is necessary while discharging their duties as drivers. In that background, the learned Single Judge modified the punishment from withholding of one increment without cumulative effect to that of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, which according to us is proper, looking into the nature and gravity of charge. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms