SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top