IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI W.P. NO.16342/2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
J. RAMULU S/O. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, KSRTC BUS DRIVER, DAVANAGERE DEPOT, DAVANAGERER DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577001.
(BY SRI. JAGAN MOHAN M.T., ADV.,) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C. DAVANGERE DIVISION, DAVANGERE-577001.
(BY SRI.B.L. SANJEEV, ADV.,) … PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 2.4.2016 IN I.D. NO.192/2012 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI AT DAVANGERE CAMP VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any order or direction by quashing the impugned award dated 2.4.2016 in I.D. No.192/2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli at Davanagere camp vide Annexure-E;
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any order or direction by quashing the impugned order dated 22.5.2009 in KaRaSa:Davi.Savi:Apa74/04/560/0 9.10 passed by the respondent vide Annexure – B;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any order or direction by directing the respondent to give all back wage of salary as per rules when he is in regular duty.
2. Petitioner while working as a driver with the respondent on 21.12.2004, he has caused accident while driving bus bearing No.17 F 525. After completion of route Nos.1 and 2 duty, he had taken vehicle for rectification of certain defects and so also for washing the vehicle. When he was taking away the vehicle from the workshop ramp, it seems, he has not observed on the left hand side that there are two technical staffs of the respondent-Management against whom he hit the bus, whereby injuries has caused to Shri H.L.Sathis Chandra and J.Neelakanteshwara. J.Neelakanteshwara died in the hospital. Arising out these factual aspects, Management has initiated enquiry concluded in imposing penalty of reducing the pay to the minimum of permanent basis vide order dated 22.5.2009. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of penalty he raised a dispute. Tribunal passed award in I.D. No.192/2012 against the petitioner while upholding the order of penalty. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that arising out of the accident dated 21.12.2004, parallel proceedings were initiated. In the criminal proceedings, he has been acquitted. Whereas, in the disciplinary proceedings, no evidence has been adduced relating to negligence on the part of the petitioner. Further, it was contended none of the witnesses have been examined and cross examined before the Tribunal. Thus, in the absence of corroborative evidence relating to negligence on the part of petitioner imposition of penalty and its affirmation by the Tribunal are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of penalty and award passed by the Tribunal. It was contended that due to accident, one of the staff has died. Merely acquittal in the criminal case petitioner is not entitled to any relief in a disciplinary matter and there is no error committed by the Tribunal so as to interfere.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Arising out of accident dated 21.12.2004, respondents have initiated parallel proceedings. In the criminal proceedings, petitioner has been acquitted. Whereas, in the disciplinary proceedings he was punished in imposing the penalty refixing the petitioner’s pay scale to the minimum on permanent basis. Perusal of order of imposing penalty as well as award of the Tribunal, it is evident that there is no iota of evidence to contend there is a negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing accident which has resulted in death of a staff of the respondent. In the absence of corroborative evidence and any eye witness one cannot draw inference that there was a negligence on the part of the petitioner in causing accident. Management has failed to produce the evidence of any of the persons and not even evidence of injured person so as to contend that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner which has attracted misconduct. In view of these lacunas, Tribunal has committed error in rejecting I.D. No.192/2012.
7. Accordingly, Annexure-E dated 2.4.2016 is set aside. Order of penalty dated 22.5.2009 at Annexure-B is also set aside. Concerned respondent is hereby directed to calculate arrears of pay and all monetary benefits and the same shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this orders, failing which, petitioner is entitled to interest @ 8% per annum.
Writ petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE BS