IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.1043 OF 2019 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN H R JAGADEESH BABU S/O K H RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A ‘PRAMELA NILAYA’ 2ND MAIN, 7TH CROSS VIJAY NAGAR TUMKUR-572102 (BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES K H ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027 2. THE DIRECTOR (ESTABLISHMENT AND ENVIRONMENT) THE CHAIRMAN THE COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE POST, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BANGALORE-560027 ... PETITIONER 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC TUMKUR DIVISION TUMKUR-572101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-N TO THE WRIT PETITION AND THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 3.1.2019 SENT BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-S TO W.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was appointed as driver cum conductor in the respondent Corporation on 21.04.2008. After the period of probation, the appointment of the petitioner was confirmed and the petitioner has put in more than 11 years of service with the respondent Corporation.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that on 29.04.2014, when the petitioner was on duty in one of the vehicles belonging to the Corporation, the vehicle met with an accident and the petitioner sustained injury on his right knee. The petitioner has undergone operation and was advised to do light work in the Corporation. Following the medical advice, the respondent Corporation allocated light work to the petitioner. However, it is contended by the respondent Corporation that the petitioner was being observed and there has been recording of the movement of the petitioner in the CC TV camera installed in the office of the Corporation. It was also reported by the security that the petitioner is able to discharge his functions normally.
3. In the light of the above, the petitioner along with some other employees similarly situated were called for undergoing medical examination, at the instance of the respondent Corporation. At this juncture, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the communication dated 03.01.2019 whereby the petitioner was called for medical examination. It is contended that a circular issued by the Corporation provides that where the disability is permanent in nature, there is no need for undergoing medical examination as required in case of non-permanent disability.
4. On hearing the learned counsels and on perusing the writ papers, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if he undergoes the medical examination, at the instance of the respondent Corporation.
The petition is bereft of any merit and is therefore dismissed.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE