IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.17051/2013 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI.H.S.MURTHY S/O LATE SUBBIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT POLICE BOREGOWDARA BUILDING BYADARAHALLI, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 091 SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 1 (A) SARASWATHAMMA W/O LATE H.S.MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.60-A, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN, MARUTHI NAGAR, MAHADESHWAR NAGAR MAIN ROAD, HAROHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 091.
1 (B) SMT.RAMYA, D/O H.S. MURTHY, MAJOR, R/A NO.60-A, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN, MARUTHI NAGAR, MAHADESHWAR NAGAR MAIN ROAD, HAROHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 091 1(C) SMT.BHAVYA.M W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, NO.147, 5TH CROSS, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BYADRAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 091 (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.08.2018) ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.R HEMANTH RAJ, ADV.) AND:
THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, B.M.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 027 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT : H R RENUKA, ADV. (NOC)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2006 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.5.2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.7/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-R.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 20.09.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is filed by the petitioner – workman being aggrieved of the order of dismissal dated 12.01.2006, which is confirmed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru by the order dated 25.5.2009 in I D No.7/2006.
2. The facts to be stated in brief are that petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent Corporation in the year 1992. On 27.09.1997, after five years, it was alleged that petitioner has submitted a fake transfer certificate No.58/76-77 in order to get an employment. The petitioner gave reply on 08.10.1997. Thereafter, no enquiry was initiated. Again on 04.09.2003 one more articles of charge was served on the same ground. The petitioner gave a detailed reply. It is stated by the petitioner that the head master by mistake issued school transfer certificate to the petitioner showing his admission No.10/71-71 instead of Admission No.43/72-73. The head master has corrected the mistake and issued new T.C. showing admission No.43/72-73, which was also produced along with the above reply.
3. It is stated, the respondent not satisfied with the reply initiated enquiry. The enquiry officer without following the principles of natural justice has submitted enquiry report.
Thereupon the respondent issued a show cause notice for which the petitioner has given detailed reply. However, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the order dated 12.01.2016.
4. The petitioner filed claim statement before the Labour Court and also led his evidence and produced Ex.W1 to W4. The respondent did not lead any evidence. The Labour Court without appreciating the materials available on record and without application of mind has dismissed the claim statement. Hence this petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that head master, Sri M N Ramu has clearly deposed before the enquiry officer that he only issued transfer certificate and admitted that by oversight he has written admission No.10/70- 71 instead of No.43/72-73 in Ex.D1. The marks card Ex.P3 and admission extract register Ex.P5 and report given by one S Devaraj Ex.P4 clearly show that petitioner has studied up to 7th standard. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that the respondent issued article of charges against the petitioner after lapse of 11 years of service without explaining the delay. The labour court and enquiry officer comes to conclusion that the petitioner has not studied in the school in question on the ground that there is no document available in the school about petitioner having studied in the school. Non availability of documents in the school cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The enquiry officer failed to give list of witness and list of documents at the time of issuance of article of charges and even at the time of enquiry documents were not furnished. The enquiry officer has not followed the principles of natural justice at the time of enquiry. The respondent has imposed lesser punishment in respect of other employees and thus meted out discrimination to the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the labour court and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the labour court has committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order? My answer would be in the negative for the following reasons.
9. The Labour Court has held domestic enquiry is just and fair. It is there in the evidence of WW-1 that articles of charge was issued after five years of service and that he was dismissed after 15 years of service. He was not involved in any other previous cases and the management has imposed minor punishments in respect of other drivers in the similar circumstances. The petitioner had produced xerox copies of the orders in respect of other employees marked as Ex.W1 to W4. There is nothing in the evidence of WW-1 about the victimization. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of dismissal suffers from victimization.
10. According to Ex.M2, the petitioner produced T.C. bearing Admission No.58/76-77 (Admission No.10/70-71). Ex.M3 is reply wherein the petitioner contended that Admission No.10/70-71 was mentioned due to handwriting mistake and he has produced TC bearing Admission No.43/72-73, wherein mistake is rectified. Thus the petitioner claimed that the TC produced by him is genuine.
11. The Security Havaldar deposed that he had gone to the Head Master of Government Higher Primary School, Banakanakere, Turuvekere Taluk and requested him to give verification letter in respect of the TC produced. Such T C registration number was not available in the records and in view of verification letter in respect of T.C. bearing Admission No.43/72-73, he sought information of the Block Education Officer, Turuvekere. Thus he gave a report that the TC is not genuine. In the cross-examination he admitted that during the course of enquiry, the Head Master has confirmed that the Admission No.43/72-73 bearing letter No.58/76-77 dated 2.1.1976 is a genuine T.C. He has also admitted that the Head Master has admitted the fact that one H S Murthy studied in their school under Admission No.43/72-73.
12. The evidence of Palakshaiah, B.E.O states that Ex.M8 is Admission Register of Government Higher Primary School, Banakanakere Village, Turuvekere Taluk. Ex.M8(a) refers to 1972-73 and Ex.M8(b) refers to number 43. There is some amendment of number with reference to the number 43 and they are suspicious. Ex.M8(b) might have been written later and page Nos.1 to 34 of Admission register for the year 1970-71 to 1993-94 are not available. He has stated, Ex.M10 is the consolidated statement of marks, wherein, there is no information regarding Admission No.43/72-73 in respect of 7th standard. He has deposed, in Ex.M11, date of issue of T.C. is mentioned as 2.1.1976, whereas the received date is mentioned as 1.1.1977. Therefore, it is his deposition that Ex.M2 and M11 transfer certificates are bogus and he has given his letter at Ex.M7 and identified his signature at Ex.M7(a).
13. In the letter Ex.M4 issued by the Head Master of the school, it is stated that Admission No.10/70-71 was not available in their school. However, it is clarified that Admission No.43/72-
73 is available and it pertains to the petitioner. The petitioner placed reliance on statement of Head Master that he has rectified the admission number, and as such the T.C. is a bogus one. The Corporation has taken verification letter from the B.E.O and his statement was also recorded in the domestic enquiry. He has given a statement that both the T.Cs. are not genuine as there has been a rectification in the Admission Register, as there has been amendment in the registers, as well as in the T.Cs. admission numbers. Considering all these aspects, it cannot be said that it is only a mistake due to inadvertence. It is also found that contents in both the T.Cs. are written in different columns contrary to the admission registers as well as contrary to the other contents. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Block Education Officer.
14. The contention of the petitioner that different treatment is meted out to other employees by imposing lesser punishment, cannot be of any help to the petitioner in view of the decision in W P No.12450/2006 disposed of on 28.11.2007 on which reliance was placed by the respondent. It is held there that at one point of time and under one set of facts, if the Disciplinary Authority had taken a lenient view, it cannot come to the aid of petitioner.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision in Resource Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., vs., Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 336 to the effect that falsity of certificate detected 9 long years after appointment and a further period of 13 years spent in inquiry and litigation, termination of service even at that stage, is justified. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that first articles of charge was served after five years of appointment and he is dismissed from service after putting his service for nearly 14 years, cannot be countenanced. The production of bogus certificate to obtain an employment is a serious misconduct.
16. After considering the above materials, I am of the view that the Labour Court is justified in passing the impugned order. There is no irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE akd