Girimallappa vs The Divisional Controller NWKRTC

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioner, aggrieved by the Award dated 28.3.2007 in KID No. 8/2003 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bijapur, rejecting the petition u/s. 10[4-A] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short ''the Act''] and confirming the order of dismissal dated 26.12.2002, has presented this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Briefly stated facts are:

[a] Petitioner, on 16.02.2000 while discharging duties as a Conductor in the bus bearing certificate of Registration KA-28 F 816, belonging to the respondent-Corporation, on route Satara to Bijapur when checked at Jath, Stage No. 12, was found to be in possession of old unauthorized tickets numbering 71 worth Rs. 1,300/- and that ticket No. 410100 of Rs. 8/- was recorded against Rs. 10/- denomination in the conductor''s way bill abstract No. 1848138. The checking officials confiscated the 71 tickets and the way bill abstracts. It was further noticed that way bill abstract did not contain the opening numbers of the tickets. The checking officials having secured way bill extracts in which the 71 tickets were accounted for, issued an offence memo detailing the aforesaid irregularities. Thereafterwards, the disciplinary authority issued an articles of charge, following which the Enquiry Officer was appointed who enquired into the acts of misconduct, and submitted a report which when accepted by the disciplinary authority who found the petitioner guilty of the charges issued the order dated 26.12.2002 dismissing the petitioner from service for proved misconduct.

[b] That order when called in question in a petition u/s. 10[4-A] of the Act before the Labour Court, the respondent arraigned as second party entered appearance, and resisted the claim by filing counter statement, inter alia, pointing out the irregularities committed by the petitioner. The Labour Court in the premise of pleadings of the parties, framed issues, the first of which related to the validity of the domestic enquiry, where after respondent examined its Law Officer as MW. 1 who introduced in evidence 52 documents marked as Ex. M1 to M52 while the petitioner was examined as WW.1 and marked 13 documents marked as Ex. W1 to W13. The Labour Court, having regard to the material on record, recorded a finding on issue No. 1 in the negative, holding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper by order dated 16.12.2005. Thereafterwards, the respondent-Corporation examined the Traffic Inspector as MW.2 on 24.7.2006 in support of proof of the charges. Petitioner was further examined as WW. 1 when extended opportunity to adduce evidence on victimization.

c. The Labour Court, having regard to the oral testimony of MW.2 coupled with documents Ex. M1 to M.52, in great elaboration, recorded a finding that the charges were proved.

Regard being had to the petitioner in possession of unauthorized'' 71 tickets worth Rs. 1,300/- which had once been issued and accounted for, in 14 previous way bill abstracts, coupled with non issue of tickets to two passengers travelling in the bus free of cost and the failure to record opening ticket numbers and entries in the way bill abstract, the Labour Court concluded that the charges were established. The Labour Court observed that the charges against the workman since proved, did not call for interference with the order of punishment in exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 11A of the Act and by the Award impugned, rejected the petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, evidence both oral and documentary and examined the Award impugned, undoubtedly, the findings of the Labour Court are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary and therefore it is not open for interference by the court. The nature of charges against the petitioner since held proved, touches upon the trust, honesty and integrity of the petitioner and is accordingly dealt with iron hands. Petitioner when entrusted with public money, acting in a fiduciary capacity, is required to have the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness, which must be unexceptionable. Petitioner having not shown any of those characters, required to be in built in a Conductor discharging duties in a public road transport corporation, deserves no lesser punishment than that of dismissal from service.

The observations of the Apex Court in Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Others Vs. Hoti Lal and Another, is apposite.

It needs to be emphasized that the court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court''s order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of decision taken to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (See Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree). A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a court, as to what it is that the court is addressing its mind. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of dismissal.

In Devendra Swamy Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn., , the Apex Court while dealing with scope of judicial review, particularly, with reference to the penalty or punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, held that it may not be proper for the High Court that once the charge of misconduct is proved and there is no illegality, after a due enquiry giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice, it is immaterial whether the amount of defalcation is small and the penalty of dismissal is harsh.

Similar was the view expressed by the Apex Court in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh, , holding that when an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation''s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. It further held that there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum of punishment.

The aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court were followed by the division Bench of this court in H.K. Shekar Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, . A consideration of the material on record, the Award impugned is well merited, fully justified and the materials available on record are neither shown to suffer from any infirmity in law nor is substantiated to be based on no evidence or violated on account of any perversity of approach to call for a different conclusion and interfere with the verdict.

Petition, devoid of merits, is rejected.