IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.3512 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
MR. R.GANGADHARA NAIK AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O SRI RAMA NAIK R/AT NO.27, PAPAIAH GARDEN KHB COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 079 (BY SHRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE K.H.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 04/10/2018 IN W.P. NO.11596/2010 [L-KSRTC] AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE W.P. NO.11596/2010 [L-KSRTC] AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT I.A.No.1/2019 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. Sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. Therefore, delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the appeal wherein the challenge is to the order dated 4th October 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the appellant for challenging the award of the Labour Court was dismissed.
3. The appellant was employed by the respondent – BMTC as a conductor of a bus. A domestic enquiry was initiated against the appellant. The domestic enquiry was based on the incident of 12th July 2001. It is the case of the respondent that the checking officers at about 10.20 in the night on that day boarded the bus in which the appellant was discharging the duty as a conductor. It was found after verification that the appellant had resold the already issued tickets to fifteen passengers after receiving fare from them and he had not issued tickets to a group of three passengers even after receiving fare from them. After conducting a domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the three charges framed against the appellant were proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed a detailed order dismissing the appellant from the employment in which it has recorded that the appellant was involved in 118 cases in the past.
4. A dispute was raised by the appellant which was referred to the Presiding Officer of third Additional Labour Court. The evidence was recorded before the Labour Court. The Labour Court decided against the appellant and, therefore, a writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge.
5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that firstly, an opportunity of examining certain witnesses was denied to the appellant. Secondly, he submitted that the charges were not established at all before the Enquiry Officer or before the Labour Court. His submission is that the defence of the appellant has not been considered and in any event, penalty of dismissal was shocking disproportionate considering the allegations made against the appellant.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions.
7. Apart from the detailed analysis made by the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge has referred to the evidence on record. The learned Single Judge has also referred to three witnesses examined by the appellant who claim that they were commuters in the bus at the time of the incident. The learned Single Judge has noted that the witnesses did not produce their tickets to show that they were present when the checking was done by the squad of the respondent. The Checking Officer had deposed that in respect of total seven passengers, the appellant was found to have reissued tickets which were already issued in the first, seventh and eighth trips. Thus, both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have gone into the evidence adduced by the parties and have found no error in the report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the order of dismissal.
8. In the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it is recorded that the appellant was involved in 118 cases, out of which, nine were red marked cases. He has referred to the said cases where allegations were about collecting fare from the passengers and issuing already sold tickets. It is noted by the Disciplinary Authority that the appellant was fined in the earlier cases.
9. Taking overall view of the matter, we find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge refusing to interference in the award by the Labour Court. There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB