ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 27.03.2017 in I.D.No.23/2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chikkaballapur, wherein on a preliminary issue relating to validity of the Departmental enquiry, the learned District Judge has held that the Departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent/employer is a valid enquiry.

3. The petitioner is also questioning the order dated 28.07.2017 in the aforementioned proceeding, wherein an award is passed rejecting the claim petition filed by the workman, who had invoked Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Departmental enquiry was concluded hurriedly without providing an opportunity to the petitioner/delinquent employee to defend his case. It is his submission that after the closure of the evidence, the authority ought to have posted the matter for the defence statement and defence evidence, if any. However, on the day, when the petitioner was absent, the evidence of the presenting officer was recorded and on the same day, the case was posted for orders, even without hearing the arguments. Thus he would contend that there is a serious procedural lapse, which resulted in denial of opportunity to the petitioner to defend the proceedings initiated against him. Thus he would contend that the order on preliminary issue is erroneous.

5. In the alternative, he would also contend that the finding on issue No.2 and on the merits of the matter is also erroneous as the learned District Judge has failed to appreciate the materials on record in a proper perspective and important evidence placed on record, have been completely overlooked.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/employer would contend that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity before the Disciplinary Authority. Assuming that there was a procedural lapse, the petitioner ought to have moved an application to re-open the case with a request to enable him to file defence statement and to lead evidence and he having not availed such opportunity, is not entitled to raise objection relating to procedure followed by the authority in conducting the disciplinary enquiry. It is also the contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent that petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for 231 days and he has already faced 28 disciplinary enquiries and on all occasions, minor penalty has been imposed on the petitioner, as such there is no scope to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge.

7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

8. The records would indicate that on 25.07.2015, witness on behalf of the employer was examined. Admittedly, on that day, petitioner was not present before the enquiring authority. Thereafter, the proceeding was concluded and notice was issued to the petitioner regarding the finding of the enquiry officer, to which the petitioner replied. Thereafter, the penalty of dismissal was imposed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1971. By referring to the said Regulations, he would contend that after the evidence of the presenting officer, the case should have been posted for defence statement, if any, on behalf of the delinquent employee. The said procedure admittedly is not followed. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that once the notice was issued to the delinquent employee intimating the finding of the enquiry, the delinquent employee had an opportunity to move the application to re-open the case, that lapse on the part of the delinquent employee by itself would not cure the procedural lapse on the part of the enquiring officer. Since the Regulation mandates that an opportunity has to be g