Chandrakanth vs North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and Others

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—The appeal is against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

The grounds urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that he was eligible to make an application pursuant to the notification calling for the applications to the post of Law Officers in respondent-Northeast Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. Pursuant to the notification, the appellant made an application and he claimed his case to be considered for the said post. The respondent dismissed his claim on the ground that he was punished by imposing a minor penalty on 09.07.2011. The learned counsel submits that as per the regulation provided under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulation, 1971 (for short the ''Regulations''), the grounds urged by the appellant that the non-consideration of his case for the post of Law Officer, is arbitrary. Hence, he challenged the constitutional validity of the said notification and also the minor punishment imposed on 09.07.2011. Under the provisions of the Regulations, when a charge sheet is issued and it is denied, the respondent has no other way, except to proceed further by holding regular enquiry. Pursuant to issuance of charge sheet, proceedings have been dismissed and it was not further proceeded. However, the appellant was punished by withholding of increment without cumulative effect. The punishment of withholding of increment without cumulative effect is also major punishment for which there should have been a regular enquiry. Though he challenged the notification issued calling for application, however, he confines his prayer only with regard to challenging the punishment order dated 09.07.2011. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred judgment in the case of V. Mahadeva Vs. The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another, ; and in the case of Sri Kasim Ali Khan v. The State of Karnataka and others ILR (1997 Kar 3092) in which it has been held that holding of inquiry as provided under Regulations is not necessary in all cases and if once it is indicated that such inquiry is held, then the disciplinary authority cannot turn round and follow procedure laid down in Regulation 22(1)(a) for imposing minor penalty.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that this appeal be dismissed firstly for the reason that the appellant has not availed the alternative remedy provided under Regulation 30 of the Regulations and secondly on the ground of delay and laches. The delay and laches has not been explained by the appellant. Therefore, he submits that, instead of going into the merits of the matter, appeal be dismissed. Without disputing the issuance of charge sheet, learned counsel submits that the reply made to the charge sheet has been gone into by the respondent and it was felt to impose a minor penalty for which regular enquiry was not mandatory. The charge framed against the appellant is that of having not issued tickets for two passengers. Hence, he was punished with a fine of Rs. 620/- and the same has been paid.

We have heard both sides. Without going into the merits of the matter, we propose to dispose of this appeal for the following reasons:

"(i) Under Regulation 30 of the Regulations, there is a appeal provision against the punishment order.

(ii) When an alternative and efficacious remedy is available under the Regulations, ordinarily the appellant or a delinquent is supposed to exhaust the said remedy.

(iii) The appellant has not stated reasons for not having availed the alternative remedy. Availability of an alternative remedy was the ground for which the writ petition was dismissed."

Under these circumstances, we feel it just and proper to dispose of this appeal reserving liberty to the appellant to avail the alternative remedy by preferring an appeal to the respondent. We have taken notice of pendency of this matter. Pendency of the matter is the ground for condonation of delay. Under these circumstances, we expect that the respondent would not insist the ground the delay in the appellant preferring the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order:

ORDER

"The writ appeal is disposed of. Order of learned Single Judge is modified. Appellant is permitted to avail of the alternative remedy by preferring an appeal within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such an appeal is made, respondent to dispose of the appeal on merit without taking the ground of delay."

Subject to the observations made above appeal stands disposed of.