ORDER

Articles of charges were issued to the workman for misbehaving with the Assistant Traffic Superintendent (“ATS”) and Depot Manager and disobeying the directions given by the ATS, enquiry was conducted, Enquiry Officer submitted his report, the Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer and the material placed before it, held that the charges leveled against the workman were proved and imposed punishment by reducing the basic pay of the workman by one incremental stage permanently and treating the period of suspension of the workman as the period not on duty.

2. Dispute was raised by the workman, reference was made by the appropriate Government under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short), the workman filed claim statement, the corporation filed objections to the claim statement, the Industrial Tribunal, on the issue of the validity of the enquiry, held that the enquiry conducted was fair and proper.

3. On the question of victimization and perversity of the order, the workman examined himself as W.W.1, no evidence was let-in by the Corporation. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, confirmed the order imposing punishment on the workman by reducing the basic pay by one incremental stage. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the workman is before this Court.

4. Heard Sri L. Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

5. Articles of charges were issued to the petitioner-

workman, which reads as under:

“DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ

1. ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.5.2005 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀð ¸ÀA.109/110 (²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ Hn) gÀ £Á½£À PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁr JAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¸ÀAZÁgÀ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ‘KgÀÄ zsÀé¤AiÀÄ°è K£À¥Àà £Á£ÉÃPÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ £Á£ÉãÀÄ C¨É¸ÉAmï VgÁQ£Á ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À» ªÀiÁr JAzÀÄ ¥Àæw ¢ªÀ¸À £À£Àß vÀ¯É w£Àß ¨ÉÃr £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ C¸À¨sÀåªÁV ªÀwð¹zÀÄÝ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀzÉ EzÀÝ°è £Á½£À PÀvÀðªÀå PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ KPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è PÉÆqÀzÉ EzÀÝgÉ ºÉÇÃUÀ¥Àà £À£ÀUÉãÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ DqÀðgï PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ¥Àæw ¢ªÀ¸À ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¤Ã£ÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ C£ÁªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁV vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ £ÁªÀÅ ¥Àæw ¢ªÀ¸À ¤£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ §gÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ £ÁªÉãÀÄ ¤£Àß D¼ÀÄUÀ¼Á JAzÀÄ KgÀÄ zsÀé¤AiÀÄ°è EvÀgÉ ZÁ®PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀgÉÆA¢UÉ C¸À¨sÀå jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀwð¹gÀÄwÛÃj’.

DgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.5.2005 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀð ¸ÀA.109/110 (²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ Hn) gÀ £Á½£À PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁr JAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¸ÀAZÁgÀ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ‘KgÀÄ zsÀé¤AiÀÄ°è K£À¥Àà £Á£ÉÃPÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ £Á£ÉãÀÄ C¨É¸ÉAmï VgÁQ£Á ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À» ªÀiÁr JAzÀÄ ¥Àæw ¢ªÀ¸À £À£Àß vÀ¯É w£Àß ¨ÉÃr £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ C¸À¨sÀåªÁV ªÀwð¹zÀÄÝ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀzÉ EzÀÝ°è £Á½£À PÀvÀðªÀå PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ KPÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è PÉÆqÀzÉ EzÀÝgÉ ºÉÇÃUÀ¥Àà £À£ÀUÉãÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ DqÀðgï PÉÆqÀĪÁUÀ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ¥Àæw ¢ªÀ¸À ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¤Ã£ÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ C£ÁªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁV vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ £ÁªÀÅ ¥Àæw ¢ªÀ¸À ¤£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ §gÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ £ÁªÉãÀÄ ¤£Àß D¼ÀÄUÀ¼Á JAzÀÄ KgÀÄ zsÀé¤AiÀÄ°è EvÀgÉ ZÁ®PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÁðºÀPÀgÉÆA¢UÉ C¸À¨sÀå jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀwð¹gÀÄwÛÃj’ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è WÀlPÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¸ÀAZÁgÀ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ºÁdjzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À UÀªÀĤ¹ ªÀÄÄA¢£À DzÉñÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À¨ÉÃr JAzÀÄ WÀlPÀ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ¤ÃªÀÅ ‘KgÀÄ zsÀé¤AiÀÄ°è K ºÉÇÃVæ ¤ÃªÀÅ qÀÆån PÉÆqÀzÉ EzÀÝgÉãÀAvÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ ¸À¸ÉàAqï ªÀiÁr r¸ï«Ä¸ï ªÀiÁrPÉƽî F £ËPÀj AiÀiÁªÀ¤UÉ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ C¸À¨sÀå jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÁr ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ £ÀqÀvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1971 gÀ ¨sÁUÀ 2 gÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ 1 gÀ G¥À ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½ i, & iii ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 2 G¥À ¤AiÀĪÀÄ ii £ÀÄß G®èAX¹ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ CUËgÀªÀ¢AzÀ £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj’.”

6. Before the Enquiry Officer, the Depot Manager, who was present at the time of the incident, i.e., on 22.05.2005, was examined and he categorically stated the misbehavior of the workman by using abusive language agains