IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.29679/2013 (S-DE) BETWEEN:
SRI HARISH KOTARY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O. NARASIMHA KOTARY ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD BANGALORE – 560 027.
2. THE BOARD SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION K.H. ROAD BANGALORE – 560 027.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2012 PASSED BY THE BOARD SECRETARY, KSRTC, BANGALORE AND ORDER DATED 08.08.2011 PASSED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR / DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KSRTC, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURES – A & B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner and three others having been issued with Articles of Charge dated 22.10.2008 vide Annexure-C, the petitioner submitted reply vide Annexure-D, denying the charges. A Committee was constituted vide Order No.KST/CO/DS/874/11-12 dated 25.05.2011, to ascertain with regard to the violation caused in the matter of purchase of cable in the divisions. The Committee submitted report and recommended certain measures.
2. The Disciplinary Authority having regard to the recommendations made by the Committee passed the order of punishment vide Annexure-B. An appeal filed by the petitioner having been rejected and the communication dated 10.04.2012 vide Annexure-A having been served on the petitioner, this petition was filed to quash the orders as at Annexures – A and B.
3. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned advocate contended that reply to the Articles of Charge having been submitted and the allegations denied, respondent No.1 has acted arbitrarily and illegally in imposing the penalty of recovery of `2,15,744/- and also in treating the suspension period of the petitioner as suspension only. He submitted that there existed no ground to dispense with the enquiry as required under Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulation, 1971 and that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel contended that the appeal filed being meritorious, without lawful consideration has been dismissed by the Board of Management of KSRTC and hence, both the orders, as at Annexures – A and B, being illegal are liable to be quashed.
4. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned advocate for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the reply of the petitioner and also the recommendations made by the Committee and after recording reasons for dispensing with the enquiry, the order at Annexure-B was passed. She submitted that the punishment imposed i.e., recovery of the amount having been classified as a minor punishment under sub-Regulation (v) of Regulation 18, no interference is called for, as reasons has been recorded for dispensing with the enquiry and imposition of minor punishment. She submitted that the recommendation of the Committee is based on records and the same was scrutinized by the Disciplinary Authority and as the reply of the petitioner was found to be unacceptable, the punishment was imposed. Learned counsel submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide Annexure-B being justified and the appeal filed having been found to be devoid of merit was dismissed vide order at Annexure-A. Learned counsel supported the orders as at Annexures – A and B.
5. In Ankappa vs. Management of K.S.R.T.C., Bangalore, ILR 1996 Kar 3050, it was held that, while considering the question of either holding or dispensing with an enquiry, Disciplinary Authority is bound to consider in a fair and objective manner not only the nature of the charges leveled against the employees but also the nature of defence set up by him.
6. In the present case, the petitioner in his reply filed has denied the charges. The order as at Annexure-B does not show the Disciplinary Authority having considered in a fair and objective manner, the defence set up by the petitioner in his said reply to the Articles of Charge. An arbitrary decision has been taken to dispense with the enquiry and impose the punishment of recovery of `2,15,744/-, apart from treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as suspension only. The Appellate Authority has decided the appeal without noticing the legal infirmity, noticed supra, in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which being contrary to the decision in Ankappa’s case, is liable to be interfered with.
7. The charges alleged being factual and reply having been submitted by the petitioner denying the same, an enquiry in the matter ought to have been held. The decision arrived at by the first respondent and affirmed by the second respondent vide orders as at Annexures – B and A respectively, being opposed to the procedure prescribed under the Regulations and there being non- compliance with the mandate of ratio of decision in Ankappa’s case, the impugned orders are unsustainable.
In the result, petition is allowed and the impugned orders as at Annexures – A and B to the extent it concerns the petitioner, are quashed. However, liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 to take action, if found necessary, in accordance with law.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ca