ORDER

Challenging impugned direction issued by respondent no.2 - State Commission in it's recommendation dated 01.06.2018 in Case nos.433/2016 and 146/2016 at Annexure-

F, this petition is filed.

2. Sri B.S. Shrinivas advocate for Sri. B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (‘NEKRTC’ for short) is one of Corporations constituted under Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Service conditions of it's employees are governed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1971 (hereinafter ‘C&D Regulations’).

3. It is stated that respondent no.1 while working as conductor at Koppal division, filed complaint of misbehavior and high-handed action against one Sri. K. Tejanaik. Investigation report of Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer, NEKRTC Bellary, dated 31.10.2009 found that Tejanaik Assistant Traffic Manager, Hospete bus stand had discharged his duties as entrusted and respondent no.1 had misunderstood said officer and filed complaint.

4. On basis of above report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent no.1 beginning with issuance of Articles of Charge dated 18.06.2011 and culminating in order of punishment dated 30.10.2015 passed by petitioner no.2 - disciplinary authority directing withholding of one annual increment for two years without cumulative effect. In appeal filed against said order before petitioner no.1, order of punishment was modified directing deduction of Rs.3,000/- from salary of respondent no.1 in three installments. Said order attained finality.

5. On other hand, respondent no.1 filed two complaints dated 23.07.2015 and 29.07.2015 before respondent no.2 -State Commission which were registered as case nos.146 and 443 /2016 respectively. In said complaints, there was allegation of harassment of dalit worker by Sri. Basavarao, Divisional Controller, Koppal Division, by arraying petitioners herein as respondents.

6. On entering appearance, they filed statement of objections. Without considering same, respondent no.2 proceeded to issue impugned directions which were beyond its powers under the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (hereinafter ‘SC/ST Commission Act’ for short). Relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of All Indian Overseas Bank SC & ST Employees' Welfare Association Vs. Union of India1, it was submitted that though Commission had powers of Civil Court; its powers did not extend to adjudication issuing directions etc. Therefore, impugned directions were arbitrary and illegal and unsustainable.

7. On other hand, Smt. Manjula N. Kulkarni, advocate appearing for Sri V.S. Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri. C Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to justify impugned direction.

1 1996 (6) SCC 606

8. Respondent no.1 in his statement of objections, after explaining purpose of constitution of Commission, sought to justify complaint filed by him contending that after due enquiry affording opportunity to both parties and after application of mind arrived at conclusion to issue directions.

Therefore, no interference was called for.

9. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and record.

10. Admittedly, complaints at Annexures - 'B' and 'C'

filed by respondent no.1 before respondent no.2 - State Commission are for taking legal action against Sri. L. Tejanaik and other officials of NEKRTC for causing harassment to him.

11. Said allegations are denied by petitioners in their objections filed at Annexures - 'D' and 'E'.

12. Under impugned directions, Commission claims to have found substance in complaint necessitating issuance of directions: firstly, setting aside order of punishment imposed by petitioner no.1 - disciplinary authority and directing petitioners to consider petitioner’s service seniority and grant promotion with financial benefits and also grant protection to petitioner and his wife etc., and