IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND 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.3188 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
S.K. RAMU, S/O. KALLEGOWDA, AGED 55 YEARS, EX-DRIVER, TOKEN NO.13148, K.S.R.T.C., R/AT SINDHAGHATTA VILLAGE & POST, SEELNARE HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA-577 201. ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.5871/2015 DATED 15.09.2018 DIRECTED THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE APPELLANT BY PAYING FULL WAGES AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT AND ETC,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
The appellant was appointed as a driver on the establishment of the respondent in the year 1992. The required qualification at the relevant time was passing 4th Standard. A charge sheet was served upon the appellant alleging that he had produced a fake certificate to show that he possessed the necessary qualification and on the basis of the fake certificate, he secured orders of appointment. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant in which the misconduct alleged was established and by an order dated 4th February 2019, a punishment of dismissal from the service was imposed on the appellant.
2. The appellant approached the Labour Court by invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for challenging the order of dismissal, contending that the enquiry conducted was not fair and proper.
3. The respondent adduced the evidence and produced several documents. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence on record was that the appellant produced the fake transfer certificate at the time of seeking appointment as a driver. The said finding is based non only on the oral evidence of M.W.3 but also on the basis of the documents produced.
The Labour Court affirmed the order of dismissal. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, the order of the Labour Court has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge by passing the impugned order.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the disciplinary inquiry was initiated eleven years after the date of appointment. He submits that in case of drivers against which similar allegation was made, a lesser penalty was imposed. He also pointed out that from the year 1992 till 2011, the appellant has worked as a driver and therefore, the penalty of dismissal is very harsh and disproportionate.
5. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel. We have perused the award of the Labour Court as well as the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. We find that the register of transfer certificate and relevant extract thereof have been produced.
6. There was no reference found in the Transfer Certificate Register produced at Ex.M.78 to the transfer certificate produced by the appellant which was allegedly issued by the Government junior Collage, Chamarajpet, Bangalore. The Vice Principal of the said College was also examined as M.W.3 to confirm the said fact.
7. The Labour Court has noted in the award that the appellant went to the extent of denying that he had produced the transfer certificate marked as Ex.M7. This conduct was considered and a finding recorded that the fact that appellant has secured employment by producing the fake certificate was established. After a detailed examination of the evidence adduced, very elaborate findings of fact have been recorded by the Labour Court. There is no illegality or perversity in the findings.
8. Considering the seriousness of the misconduct which was established, the penalty of dismissal from the employment cannot be said to be harsh and disproportionate. By contending that the drivers against whom the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the similar grounds were let off with a lesser penalty, the appellant cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While imposing penalty every case needs to be considered in the light of its peculiar facts. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Snc