Disciplinary action against employees must consider justified working conditions; suspending an employee for sleeping on duty due to excessive work hours is unjust.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of suspension dated 01.07.2024, passed by the respondent, by which the petitioner is placed under suspension and seeks a consequential order, to put the petitioner back to the same post held by him, earlier to the order of suspension.

2. Heard Sri.Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Prashant S. Hosamani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is appointed as KST constable at Koppal Division on 13.05.2016. Due to shortage of staff at the respondent - Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner was transferred to work in the respondent - Corporation. On 23.04.2024, a vigilance report comes alleging that the petitioner was found sleeping while on duty. The sleeping of the petitioner was video graphed and circulated on social media. Based upon the said videos being circulated in WhatsApp groups or social media, the concerned authority records the statement of the petitioner as to the reason for his sleeping. The petitioner tenders his statement that he has taken medicine as per the advice of the doctor and he is in continuous duty in second and third shifts and therefore, he has taken a power nap of ten minutes. He was then asked to leave the depot and come back the next day.

4. The Vigilance Department appears to have submitted a report that there were only three KST constables in the depot; the workload on the exiting staff is extremely high and suggested to appoint two more constables for the purpose of smooth functioning of the depot. Based upon the circulation, the petitioner was placed under suspension and the reason for suspension is sleeping while on duty.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner was made to work in double shifts for close to one month. He had become too very exhausted and has taken a power nap due to such exhaustion. He would further contend that the Vigilance Department itself has submitted a report to the Divisional Controller indicating that there are only three constables and the depot needed 2 or 3 more. Despite this, the petitioner was made to repeatedly work in repeated shifts continuously and therefore, the deprivation of sleep, has made the petitioner to sleep. He seeks quashment of the order.

6. The learned counsel representing the respondent submits that the petitioner was caught while he was sleeping on duty. It is the further case that the petitioner sleeping was video graphed and circulated on social media, this brought disrepute to the Corporation and therefore, he was placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the respondent though refutes the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not in a position to dispute the fact that the petitioner was made to work continuously on repeated shifts, as all are a matter of record.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

8. The aforesaid narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue is, the incident that happens on 23.04.2024, when the petitioner is caught taking a nap on duty. He is therefore, placed under suspension on 01.07.2024. The order of suspension reads as follows:

The reasons for suspension are that, he was sleeping while on duty and the image of the Corporation is reduced by said act. Charge sheet is also filed after the petitioner placing under suspension on the same ground.

9. The duty of a KST constable in the Corporation is for 8 hours in a day. Three constables complete 24 hours duty of 8 ho