The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding lack of evidence for the negligence claimed and noting the undue delay in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi Bench, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in Application No.11308/2022.

2. The respondent is working as a driver in the office of the 2^nd petitioner, during the course of employment, charge memo was issued and the respondent replied and participated in the proceedings. The petitioner passed order dated 11.10.2021 by reducing two annual increments for a period of two years. The order of punishment was assailed before the Tribunal under the impugned order and the Tribunal set aside the punishment order by directing to release the withheld increments and all the benefits. Being aggrieved, the State Government has filed this writ petition assailing the order of the Tribunal.

3. Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in interfering with the order of punishment. The enquiry held against the respondent was proper and after compliance of the principles of natural justice which has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. The petitioners were able to prove by evidence that the respondent was negligent. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle has deposed that no defects in the brake system and the accident was not due to the mechanical defects, but it is due to the negligence of the driver. However, the Tribunal ignored the crucial evidence and recorded incorrect finding. It is submitted that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is not disproportionate and the same is in accordance with law. It is further submitted that when the enquiry is held as proper, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the punishment order. It is also submitted that the acquittal of the respondent from the criminal case is because the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The Tribunal ought not to have acted like an appellate authority and reassess the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry which is impermissible. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition by upholding order of punishment.

4. Per contra, Sri Kushal N.Kamble, learned counsel appearing for respondent supports the order of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal by well reasoned order has come to conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent and also recorded that the incident is of the year 2010 and after ten years, punishment of withholding two increments for two years was passed which resulted in respondent and his family members suffer mentally. It is submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is well reasoned order and does not call for interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned Government Advocate for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent, meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced.

6. The records indicate that the respondent was appointed as a driver in the petitioner No.2-Department, while discharging his duties on 10.03.2010, he was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01/G-8155, he caused accident by dashing vehicle to the ongoing pedestrians caused injury and thereafter he hit the vehicle to Choudhary Medical Store by causing damage to the shop and also damage to the departmental vehicle. The jurisdictional police registered crime in FIR No.46/2010 for offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. After completion of the trial, the respondent was acquitted from the charges vide order dated 03.12.2