ORDER

The petitioner, Senior Depot Manager of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation') is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the order bearing No.KST/CO/DISP/D135/1517/2015-16 dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure-H) imposing punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs.2,233/- and Appellate Order dated 26.05.2016 confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. Heard Sri. R.G.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Divisional Traffic Officer at the relevant point of time. A charge sheet dated 15.02.2013 under the Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulation, 1971 (for short 'Regulations') was issued to the petitioner alleging failure to recover license fee from the Commercial Shops. The charge sheet was common charge sheet against 12 employees belonging to different Divisions/Departments. After an enquiry, under impugned order dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure-H) against the petitioner, punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs.2,233/- was imposed holding that the petitioner was responsible for financial loss to the above stated extent. Aggrieved by the imposition of punishment of recovery, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1-Board of Directors. Respondent No.1-Board of Directors under Appellate Order dated 26.05.2016 dismissed the appeal confirming order passed by the Disciplinary Authority-respondent No.2. Challenging both Disciplinary Authority order as well as order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

4. Sri. R.G.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Divisional Traffic Officer and he is not responsible for collecting licence fee from Commercial Shops, it is the responsibility of the Commercial Department. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer failed to take note of the materials on record and has come to the wrong conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner is proved. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner worked as Depot Manager at Mysuru City Division between 01.05.2005 to 05.06.2006. During the said period, the petitioner has not caused any loss to the respondent-Corporation. The order of punishment to recover a sum of Rs.2,233/- from the petitioner is unjust, illegal and contrary to the materials on record. Learned counsel further submits that it is the responsibility of Divisional Traffic Officer to collect the licence fee and the Depot Manager would in no way be responsible to collect the licence fee of the Commercial Shops. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Appellate Authority failed to perform its duty and in a mechanical manner confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Further, learned counsel would submit that one Sri. S.Rajesh-Divisional Traffic Officer who was also charge sheeted along with the petitioner with same charge, was exonerated of the same by order dated 20.5.2016. Thus, prays for similar treatment to the petitioner also and for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order as well as Appellate order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. B.L.Sanjeev would submit that the petitioner being Senior Depot Manager is responsible for collecting or recovering licence fee from the Commercial Shops within the area assigned to a particular Depot Manager. Moreover, he submits that the Depot Manager has over all supervisory responsibility along with the Commercial Department of the Corporation to collect the licence fee from the Commercial Shops. Failure on the part of the petitioner to collect licence fee, the respondent-Corporation had to file civil suit and recover the licence fee from the licensees. Thus, the respon