Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 228 (KAR)

G. Sundareshan v. Management of KSRTC, Bangalore.

2006-02-28

MANJULA CHELLUR

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by the dismissed bus conductor bearing Badge No. 3368, attached to the 3rd Depot, Central Division. A departmental enquiry came to be held against the petitioner herein for not issuing tickets to six passengers, thereby, loss of Rs. 70/- was caused to the department. 3. After holding an enquiry and giving him an opportunity, the Disciplinary Authority ultimately dismissed the petitioner herein from service on 4-9-2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Bangalore contending that there was no proper and valid enquiry and no proper opportunity was given to him to put forth his case apart from not taking into consideration the defence raised by him before the Tribunal. This was seriously contested by the respondent/Corporation. They also contend that the petitioner was involved in 71 cases out of which 10 matters were —red mark—cases of the petitioner. Of course, this was taken into consideration by the Labour Court while assessing the materials placed before the Labour Court on merits. Non-issuance of tickets to six passengers is not disputed by the petitioner. His defence was that as the alleged six passengers got into the bus from the traffic jam, he was unable to issue the tickets before it was checked when the bus stopped at a tea stall near Kavalapur. During the cross-examination of the witnesses, the defence was that six passengers boarded the bus at Rampura at a traffic jam and even penalty was collected from the said passengers by threatening therewith a police case. The independent witnesses examined for the defence by the petitioner was to the effect that they were passengers in the said bus at the relevant point of time. The first witness comes out with a defence that after Cuddapah, there was a traffic jam at Kavala-pur which is quite contrary to the cross-examination of the witnesses for the management where the traffic jam alleged was at Rampura. During the cross-examination of this witness, he comes out with a different story that he was sitting along with the conductor in the three seater when the passengers forcibly made an entry into the bus and the bus had only one entry. What was the distance between the place where the so-called traffic jam occurred and the tea stall where the bus stopped is not forthcoming. What was the distance between the place where the so-called traffic jam occurred and the tea stall where the bus stopped is not forthcoming. Even the defence evidence let in during the cross-examination of the witnesses for the management compared with the defence evidence let in by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer would only go to show that the petitioner took all possible defences quite contrary to each other before the Enquiry Officer. The evidence of second witness for the petitioner was not better than the first witness. Even the place of checking made by the concerned authorities is different from the statement of the petitioner and the cross examination and also his evidence before the Enquiry officer. The driver who would have been the best witness to speak about the real cause or to support the defence of the petitioner, if at all his defence was genuine, was not brought before the Enquiry Officer. The so-called penalty amount is not properly explained by the petitioner. 4. Having regard to all these facts, the Enquiry Officer was right in observing that the first party was guilty of misconduct charged against him. There was no perversity or non-application of mind as noted by the Labour Court. The Disciplinary Authority having considered the enquiry report and the material placed before him has come to conclusion that no explanation was offered so far as 71 cases pertaining to the petitioner is concerned. Both Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have properly assessed the material which is once again assessed by the Labour Court in the right perspective. I do not find any good reason or ground to intervene with the order of the Labour Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. 5. Petition dismissed.