2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23440
- 1 -
WP No. 41704 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 41704 OF 2017 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P. YASHWANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE SUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER
HASSAN DIVISION, KSRTC
RESIDING AT KSRTC OFFICERS QUARTERS
HASSAN TOWN
HASSAN
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KASHINATH J D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2.
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR &
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027
…RESPONDENTS
(BY Ms. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
Digitally
signed by
POORNIMA
SHIVANNA
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 41704 of 2017
DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED
VIDE
NO.
KARASA/KEKA/SISTU/D-
1139/1869/2016-17 DATED 11.2.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ALSO CHALLENGING THE ORDER
VIDE
NO.
KARASA/KEKA/SISTU/D-1139/489/2015-16
DATED
30.6.2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEX-A AND B
AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ or order or direction or any other
appropriate writ or directions in the nature of
certiorari to quash the impugned Order vide No.
KaRaSa/KeKa/SiStu/D-1139/1869/2016-17 dated:
11.02.2017
passed
by
the
respondent
No.1
Appellate authority and also challenging the Order
vide No. KaRaSa/KeKa/SiStu/D-1139/489/2015-16
dated 30.06.2015 passed by the respondent No.2
as per Annexure-A & B as illegal and arbitrary.
b. Issue writ or direction or appropriate order deems
fit to the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand and to meet the interest and justice.
The petitioner was working as a Divisional Controller
at Puttur Division, on 23.12.2014 where respondent
No.2 has issued the charge sheet by imposing the
penalty and Regulation 22 of the KSRTC (C&D)
Regulations, 1971 alleging 3 charges, namely,
- 3 -
i.
It is alleged in the said charge sheet that, the
divisional controlled has relieved 8 employees of
the corporation who have transferred to other
divisions, but he has relieved the 7 employees
belatedly and he has not relieved 3 employees.
Further
the
petitioner
has
not
relieved
the
employees those who are transferred earlier to
other divisions on first cum first basis and he has
relieved latterly transferred employees on the
priority on his whims and fancies by that, he has
been misused his powers.
ii.
It is also alleged in the said charge sheet that by
doing the above, the petitioner has violated the
directions issued by the corporation dated: 10-01-
1989.
iii.
It is alleged that, you are in a responsible job by an
above act it is seen that, you have failed to
maintain the integrity and also you are acted
discriminately and thereby you are violated the
regulation 3[i][ii]&[iii] of the KSRTC Employees
[C&D] Regulations 1971. The said act committed
by you is in violation of the conduct regulations of
the corporation and thereby you are acted like
upbecoming employee of the corporation.
3.
On receipt of the charge memo the petitioner has
submitted his defense reply on 14.01.2015 by
denying the allegations.
4.
The contention of the petitioner is that without
considering the justification reasons stated in the
reply, without holding an enquiry, minor punishment
of withholding of one increment for one year has
- 4 -
been imposed and as such, the petitioner is before
this Court seeking for the above reliefs.
5.
Sri.
J.D.
Kashinath.,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner by referring to Regulation 22 of the KSRTC
(C&D) Regulations, 1971 would submit that when a
justification has been submitted by the workman as
regards the charges alleged against him by way of
reply it was but required that an enquiry be held. He
submits
that
in
his
reply
the
workman
has
categorically stated that the transfer order issued by
the Central office for inter-divisional transfer could
not be given effect to by the petitioner who was
heading the Puttur Division for the reasons that if
such transfer was given effect to then the number of
people working in Puttur Division would get reduced,
thereby adversely impacting the operation of the
Puttur Division. That apart in the reply it has been
categorically stated that the representatives of the
people being the Member of the Member of
Parliament, Legislative Assembly etc had directed the
- 5 -
petitioner to carryout operations in the area in a
proper manner. If he had relieved persons who had
been transferred the operation at the Puttur Division
would be adversely affected. In the reply he also
stated that various letters had be