Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 562 (KAR)

G. S. Sheshagiri v. Managing Director

2023-04-05

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order bearing Ref. [xxxxxx] passed by the Second Respondent and the order bearing and [xxxxxx] dtd. 13/8/2013 passed by the 1st Respondent the originals of which are produced and marked as Annexures-F and H respectively 2. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner to his original position and with further direction to pay arrears of salary and to extend all other consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice. 3. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. In W.P.No.56861/2013 a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order bearing [xxxxxxxx], passed by the Second Respondent and the order bearing and [xxxxxxxx] dtd. 13/8/2013 passed by the 1st Respondent the originals of which are produced and marked as Annexures-F and H respectively b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner to his original position and with further direction to pay arrears of salary and to extend all other consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice. c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. In W.P.No.56863/2013 a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order bearing Ref. [XXXXXXXX] dtd. 31/5/2012, passed by the Second Respondent and the order bearing and [XXXXXXXX] dtd. 13/8/2013 passed by the 1st Respondent the originals of which are produced and marked as Annexures-F and H respectively b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondents to restore the payof the petitioner to his original position and with further direction to pay arrears of salary and to extend all other consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice. c. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. In W.P.No.56864/2013 I. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order bearing Ref. [XXXXXXXX] dtd. c. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. In W.P.No.56864/2013 I. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the order bearing Ref. [XXXXXXXX] dtd. 31/5/2012, passed by the Second Respondent and the order bearing and [XXXXXXXX] dtd. 13/8/2013 passed by the 1st Respondent the originals of which are produced and marked as Annexures-F and H respectively II. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner to his original position and with further direction to pay arrears of salary and to extend all other consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice. III. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. A common charge sheet was issued to all the petitioners by invoking the provisions of KSRTC Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 against the petitioners and certain others, on 20/9/2008. The essential allegations in the charge sheet are that there was improper maintenance of battery stock and non-accountability of 1087 scrap batteries, thereby causing financial loss to the employer-Corporation to the tune of Rs.9, 34, 493.90. The petitioners' replied to the charge sheet denying the allegations levelled against them by stating that they were not responsible for the alleged losses and requested for dropping of the proceedings. Not being satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority initiated enquiry. On behalf of RTC, one witness was examined and cross-examined by the delinquent officials. The petitioner and four others viz., Sri.Seshagiri and Sri.H.Nagaraju, Store Keepers-Class III, Sri.M.R.Prabhakar, Asst. Store Keeper, Sri.Shamaraju, Asst. Stores Officer-Class III, Sri.Udayashakar. Stores Superintendent-Class II, submitted written arguments. 3. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the petitioner and four others guilty of the charges and as regards others came to a conclusion that the charges leveled against them are not proved vide his report dated 21.-3.2011. 4. A second show cause notice dtd. 5/3/2012 enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer calling upon the petitioners to submit their say in the matter. On 28/3/2012 a common submission was submitted by the petitioners that the report of the enquiry officer is perverse and not based on the evidence brought on record. 4. A second show cause notice dtd. 5/3/2012 enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer calling upon the petitioners to submit their say in the matter. On 28/3/2012 a common submission was submitted by the petitioners that the report of the enquiry officer is perverse and not based on the evidence brought on record. It was further contended that the charges having been dropped against six other delinquent officers, the charges insofar as the petitioners are concerned also ought to have been dropped. 5. The disciplinary authority vide its order dtd. 31/5/2012 held the petitioners guilty of the charges, reduced the pay of the petitioner by three annual increments with cumulative effect and insofar as Prabhakar, Asst. Store Keeper is concerned imposed a fine of Rs.30, 000.00. 6. The petitioners filed appeals under Regulation 29 before the respondent No.1 being the Appellate authority on 16/7/2012 which came to be rejected on 13/8/2013. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 7. Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the workmen would submit that, 7.1. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is completely unsustainable. Report of the enquiry officer is a generalized statement without reference to the actual factual aspects of each of the petitioners on the basis of the submissions made by each of them. 7.2. Sri.Prabhakar being awarded a punishment of Rs.30, 000.00, similar punishment ought to have been awarded to the other petitioners, they have been discriminated by directing withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. 7.3. On merits, the alleged negligence on part of the petitioners having not been established or proved by the reporting officer, though in the charge sheet it was contended that 1087 batteries were not accounted for, in the enquiry report the same has been reduced to 728 batteries, thereby there being reduction in the number of batteries claimed. 7.4. The enquiry officer has allegedly not taken into account 300 batteries in actual stock and 550 batteries fitted to 225 scrap vehicles which account to 750 batteries which is more than 728 batteries claimed to be missing by the reporting officer, in fact there are 22 excess batteries at the central store. These aspects have not been looked into by the enquiry officer before submitted his report. 7.5. These aspects have not been looked into by the enquiry officer before submitted his report. 7.5. It is on the basis of the above, he submits that the order of disciplinary authority is required to be set-aside, and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority is required to be set-aside. 8. Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for RTC would submit that, 8.1. The charges which have been levied against each of the petitioners and Prabhakar are different inasmuch as the charges levied are as under: 8.2. The charges levied against Prabhakar being a lesser charge, a penalty of Rs.30, 000.00 has been imposed. Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, higher punishment has been imposed because charges levelled are of higher nature. 8.3. She submits that claim of the petitioners that there are 300 batteries in stock has been considered both by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, as also by Appellate Authority inasmuch as there is no such stock available and as regards the claim that 515 batteries were fixed in scrapped vehicles before they were delivered subsequent to an auction is unimaginable inasmuch as after having taken out the batteries from the scrap vehicles, the question of fixing of such batteries would not arise. 8.4. Be that as it may, there are no records to establish fixing of such batteries and delivery of such vehicles with such batteries, it was for the delinquent workmen to have produced documents to establish such fact which has not been done. The scrap batteries which have been collected from various depots are sent to central office, it was for the petitioner to have accounted for the said batteries in the proper and required manner and store them in a proper manner, so that they could be separately sold. The practice of selling scrap batteries separately and scrap vehicles separately is known to the petitioners. They are seeking to confuse and confound the issue by establishing that scrap batteries have been fitted into scrap vehicles which is not the case. 8.5. The petitioners being higher officials, in-charge of the stores, there is a fiduciary duty owed by the said officers to the Corporation so as to protect the assets of the Corporation. They are seeking to confuse and confound the issue by establishing that scrap batteries have been fitted into scrap vehicles which is not the case. 8.5. The petitioners being higher officials, in-charge of the stores, there is a fiduciary duty owed by the said officers to the Corporation so as to protect the assets of the Corporation. The manner in which they have acted has resulted in 728 batteries being unaccounted for leading to an irresistible conclusion that they have used the said batteries for their own benefit to the detriment of the RTC. 8.6. On these grounds, she submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is proper and correct and does not require interference. 9. Heard Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused papers. 10. The first contention of Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel that the petitioner is discriminated against vis-a-vis Prabhakar, Prabhakar having been awarded punishment of making payment of Rs.30, 000.00. This contention will not hold this Court for long since as rightly contended by Ms.Renuka, the charges leveled against said Prabhakar and other petitioners are quite different. The charges leveled against the petitioners being more serious than that leveled against Prabhakar. The charge against Prabhakar is a general allegation that due to his negligence 1087 batteries are unaccounted for leading to loss of Rs.9, 34, 493.90 to the RTC, whereas charges against other petitioners is that each of them has failed to account for the batteries, reflect the same in the inventory, the charges against H.Nagarja as extracted hereinabove indicates that he has not accounted 1137 batteries though he received them and it is not reflected in the inventory. 11. A perusal of the said charges would indicate that these persons being the higher officers than the Asst. Store keeper, they being vested with higher responsibility, it was but required that they discharge their responsibility in a proper manner and the charges against them being completely different than that against Prabhakar, the punishment imposed on Prabhakar cannot be a guiding factor or rule to be applied to the petitioners. Hence, first contention of Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel stands rejected. 12. The said contention of Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel is that the enquiry officer has not taken into consideration the relevant factors, the disciplinary authority has also failed to do so, so also as the Appellate Authority. Hence, first contention of Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel stands rejected. 12. The said contention of Sri.V.S.Naik, learned counsel is that the enquiry officer has not taken into consideration the relevant factors, the disciplinary authority has also failed to do so, so also as the Appellate Authority. If the 300 batteries in stock and 550 batteries which had been fitted on the scrap vehicles are taken into account, there is in fact an excess of 22 batteries. This in my considered opinion is a hogwash. Now that the petitioners are contending that there are 22 excess batteries cannot be believed. Such a contention will go to the root of the matter and will also have a bearing on the manner in which the petitioners are said to have been maintaining the accounts and inventory at the RTC. The accounts and inventory have to be exact, there cannot be anything more or less in the inventory. Anything more would have to be explained, so also anything less. 13. The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority having categorically come to a conclusion that there are no 300 batteries in stock, the claim of such existence in stock has also not been established by the petitioners except by making a perfunctory statement, there is no evidence which has been brought on record by the petitioners to establish such existence of 300 batteries in stock. Thus, this contention of the petitioners cannot be believed. 14. Insofar as the 550 batteries which the petitioners alleged to have fitted in the scrap vehicles before their sale, the said contention is also not believable since no documents have been produced to that effect. In an organization like the RTC, when any part is fitted into a particular vehicle or removed therefrom, there is a requirement for the same to be recorded in writing and a process has been fixed taking into account thousands of buses which are owned by the RTC which are located in hundreds of places, there being tens of depots operated by the RTC, except mere statement made by the petitioners that 550 batteries have been fitted into 225 scrap vehicles, the petitioners have not produced any document or any basis to even put the RTC on notice to rebut such a contention. 15. A mere statement by the petitioners is not sufficient. 15. A mere statement by the petitioners is not sufficient. Furthermore, according to the petitioners by taking these two into account, there would be 22 extra batteries. There can be no situation where there would be extra batteries, at the most there could be lesser batteries. The fact that the petitioners are now giving an account for excess batteries also indicates that the allegations made against them are proper and correct and the defence which has been set up is only a hogwash. Thus, looked at from any angle, the charges against the petitioners having been proved, I am of the considered opinion that taking into account the allegations are virtually theft of the property of the RTC, the punishment which has been levied by the disciplinary authority withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect is proper and correct and does not require any interference. 16. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The petitions stand dismissed.