IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No. 2614 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SRI.P.RAMA BHAT SON OF KRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS FORMERLY WORKING AS CONDUCTOR NOW ILLEGALLY TERMINATED K.S.R.T.C., PUTTUR DEPOT MANGALURU DIVISION PRESENTLY RESIDING AT “DURGA NILAYA”
SHIVAJI NAGAR, UJJIRE POST BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-576 201.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MANGALURU DIVISION MANGALURU-576 250.
...RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ACT PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN WRIT PETITION NO.18902 OF 2010 PASSED ON 12.04.2018 AND (b) CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 18.11.2009 IN I.D.NO.10 OF 2000 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, D.K.DISTRICT, MANGALURU (ANNEXURE-L) AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.18902 of 2010, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash award dated 18.11.2009 in ID No.10/2011 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangaluru and for a mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, full back wages, increments, promotion, etc.
3. The petitioner was working as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation at Puttur Depot of Mangaluru Division. The petitioner was issued with offence memo dated 21.11.1997 alleging that on 17.11.1997, while he was conducting the bus, he had reissued 60 tickets of Rs.4/- denomination and 9 tickets of Rs.100/- denomination and made unauthorized correction in the waybill. Further it was alleged that on different dates, the petitioner has failed to get necessary entries in the way bill by the Traffic Controller Hassan. The petitioner submitted his reply to the offence memo contending that from Mangaluru to Subramanya, issuance of Rs.4/- denomination tickets would not arise and so also, issuance of Rs.100/- denomination tickets would not arise without there being a combination ticket. Thus, denied the allegations. The petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 04.04.1998. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority appointed Divisional Traffic Officer, Mangaluru Division to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 14.09.1999 holding that the charges are proved. Thereafter the respondent-Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 25.02.2000 imposing punishment of removal of the petitioner from service.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of punishment raised a dispute in I.D.No.10 of 2000 before the Labour Court, Mangaluru. The Labour Court on preliminary issue held that the enquiry by the respondent- Corporation was fair and proper. Thereafter, on examination of the material on record and after hearing the parties, the Labour Court passed award dated 12.07.2002 allowing the dispute and set aside the order of removal dated 25.05.2000. Being aggrieved by the said award, both petitioner as well as respondent filed writ petitions before this Court. This Court, by order dated 07.09.2007 allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Corporation and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal. But dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. After remand, the Labour Court by its award dated 18.11.2009 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
5. The learned Single Judge, on hearing both sides dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner has committed misconduct with an intention to make wrongful gain for himself reutilizing the tickets and was caught red- handed Further, the learned Single Judge noted that the petitioner has committed 49 offences earlier to the instant enquiry and noting the past history of the petitioner, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is in appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the appeal papers.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without properly appreciating the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is contended that the issuance of tickets of Rs.4/- denomination and Rs.100/- denomination would not arise during the journey between Mangaluru and Puttur, but submits that there was some over-writing in the way bill which are not serious in nature. The reply submitted by the petitioner is not considered properly by the respondent-Corporation as well as the Labour Court. The Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record. Thus prays for allowing the writ appeal.
8. Looking into the appeal papers, past history of the petitioner and on hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to call for interference by this Court.
9. On 17.11.1997, the petitioner was conducting the bus from Puttur to Mangaluru. The charge against the petitioner is that he had reissued 60 tickets of Rs.4/- denomination and 9 tickets of Rs.100/- denomination. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer holds charge proved against the petitioner. The Labour Court has held that the enquiry conducted by the respondent-Corporation is fair and proper. The respondent-Corporation had produced Ex.M1 to Ex.M23 to prove the charges alleged against the petitioner and also examined one H.V.Ramachandra, Assistant Traffic Inspector, who had inspected the vehicle in question on 17.11.1997. The said witness while checking the bus had found that the way bills Ex.M1 to Ex.M14 were not properly maintained and there were irregularities in them. On the basis of which, he gave report to the Superior Officers as per Ex.M16. Even though the petitioner had contended that after Stage-9 issuance of tickets of Rs.4/- denomination would not arise, but the way bill entries would show otherwise. The defense of the petitioner that by oversight such entries have been made cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The witness also stated that the applicant has failed to close the way bill with reference to the tickets issued. Based on the evidence, both oral and documentary, the charge is held to be proved and the Labour Court also on examination of the material on record has found that the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved. For the proved misconduct of reissue of tickets, the Corporation has rightly imposed the punishment of removal from service.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2001)2 SCC 574 in the case of KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v/s B.S.HULLIKATTI. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the above decision read as follows:
“5. On the facts as found by the Labour Court and the High Court, it is evident that there was short –changing of the fare by the respondent from as many as 35 passengers. We are informed that the respondent had been in service as a Conduct for nearly 22 years. It is difficult to believe that he did not know what was the correct fare which was to be charged. Furthermore, the appellant had during the disciplinary proceedings taken into account the fact that the respondent had been found guilty on as many as 36 times on different dates. Be that as it may, the principle of res ipsa loquitur, namely the facts speak for themselves, is clearly applicable in the instant case. Charging 50 paise per ticket more from as many as 35 passengers could only be to get financial benefit, by the Conductor. This act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a Conductor because such action or inaction of his is bound to result in financial loss to the appellant Corporation.
6. It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare.”
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by following the above HULLIKATTI’s case in 2006 (5) Kar.L.J. 513 (SC) in the case of DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH-EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v/s H.AMARESH at paragraphs 12, 13 and 15 has held as follows:
“12. This Court in the judgment in Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation V Ghanshyam Sharma, held that the proved acts of misconduct either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and bus conductors who by their actions and inactions cause financial loss to the Corporation ought not to be retained in service.
13. The judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V. B.S.Hullikatti was also referred to and relied on by the 3-Judges Bench in the above judgment.
This Court in B.S.Hullikatti’s case, has held in para 6 as follows:
“6. It is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in such cases when on checking it is found that the Bus Conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers, though they should have, or have issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the Bus Conductors to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the company. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare.”
15. The order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and its affirmation by the High Court is contrary to the law declared by this Court in B.S.Hullikatti, wherein it was held that it is misplaced sympathy by Courts in awarding lesser punishments where on checking it is found that the bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. They act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. It was finally held that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside. As already noticed, this view was reiterated by a 3-Judges Bench of this Court in the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation’s case.”
The above decisions would squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also.
12. The respondent-Corporation has produced Ex.M23 history sheet before the Labour Court. From the said history sheet, it is seen that the petitioner has committed as many as 49 offences prior to the present charge. The present charge is the 50th offence committed by the petitioner. A person who commits 50 offences and causes loss to the Corporation deserves the punishment of removal from service. Hence, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms