1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURIDISCTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2015

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5236/2014)

K.V.S. RAM

.. Appellant

Versus

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN

..Respondent

TRANSPORT CORPN.

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment

dated 3.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, in and by

which, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the

appellant-workman thereby, confirming the termination of the

appellant.

3.

Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as

under:- The appellant was appointed on the post of Driver in the

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation on 3.9.1985 and was

working on the same post since then. The appellant was served with

Digitally signed by

Vinod Kumar

Date: 2015.01.15

10:54:38 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

article of charge dated 3.9.1990 alleging that he had secured

appointment by producing a false transfer certificate. An enquiry was

initiated on 15.7.1992 and the appellant submitted his explanation to

the aforesaid charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on

13.3.2002 holding the appellant guilty for his misconduct. After

affording opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the

proposed punishment, the disciplinary authority passed the order

imposing punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated

1.10.2004.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant raised an

industrial dispute bearing I.D.No.39/2005 before the III Additional

Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court vide award dated

14.2.2007 directed the management of the corporation to reinstate the

appellant in his original post with continuity of service but without

backwages. The Labour Court modified the punishment directing

withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect. In the

Labour Court, appellant has produced notarized copies of orders

passed by the respondent-Corporation in respect of other workmen,

who have committed similar misconduct but were awarded lesser

punishments. Referring to Exs. W.5 to W.11 which are the notarized

copies of the orders passed in respect of other workmen who have

committed similar misconduct, Labour Court held that those workmen

3

were reinstated in service with minor punishment of withholding of

few annual increments, whereas the appellant was imposed grave

punishment of dismissal from service and thus was discriminated.

Referring to another judgment of the High Court in

W.P.No.17316/2005 (L/K) dated 8.8.2005, Labour Court observed

that when similarly situated workmen were imposed lesser

punishment and the appellant cannot be discriminated by imposing

punishment of dismissal from service and the Labour Court in

exercise of its discretion under Section 11A set aside the punishment

imposed on the appellant and directed reinstatement of the appellant

without backwages.

5.

Being aggrieved, respondent-corporation filed a writ petition

before the High Court. Vide order dated 31.1.2008, learned Single

Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the

punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the proved

misconduct against the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the

appellant-workman preferred appeal before the Division Bench

challenging the legality and correctness of the said order. The Division

Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that

the charges levelled against the appellant are serious in nature and

that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the

disciplinary authority was just and proper. In this appeal, the

4

appellant assails the correctness of the above judgment.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High

Court