AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sri.G.S.Naveen Kumar, counsel on behalf of Sri.Mukannappa S.B., for the petitioner and Smt.Renuka H.R., counsel for the respondents, appeared in person.
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the KST/CO/DSS/D2/D1160/671/16-17, dated 28.06.2016, passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-H under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the KST/CO/DSS/D1160/1877/16-17, dated 11.02.2017, passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-K under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore the increments with consequential benefits under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issue any appropriate writ, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to accord under the facts and circumstances of this case.
The short facts are these:
The petitioner served as an Assistant Traffic Superintendent at the KSRTC Nelamangala depot, Bengaluru Central Division, due to a lapse on her part concerning correspondence with M/s. Omini Visual Media Pvt. Ltd., the KSRTC Board of Directors suspended her by order dated 20.12.2014 and issued a charge sheet based on a report from the Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer at Kempegowda Bus Station, Bengaluru. The petitioner responded, denying the charges, explaining the nature of the communication between the Corporation and the Company, and seeking exoneration. Following departmental inquiry, the respondent issued a punishment order on 28.06.2016, withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect, treating the suspension period as suspension only, and denying her gratuity and related benefits.
The petitioner appealed to respondent No.1, but the appeal was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the punishment, the petitioner filed this petition, citing multiple grounds as detailed in the memorandum of the writ petition.
Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions.
Sri.Naveen Kumar, representing his case passionately, emphasised that the enquiry was conducted by a retired District Judge who failed to adhere to the mandatory provisions of the Corporation's regulations. As a result, the impugned punishment order issued by Corporation is based on a flawed enquiry and cannot be upheld legally. He pointed out that the other delinquent, Nandini, the Junior Assistant of the petitioner, had been exonerated. Therefore, the petitioner also deserves exoneration. Additionally, he argues that, on these grounds, the punishment order should be annulled, and the writ petition may be allowed.
Conversely, Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel, supported the punishment order. She argued that the petitioner, as a superior officer, was obligated to perform her duties diligently. The Corporation argued that the petitioner should have sent the communication to the correct address. However, without verifying the address, she sent it to the wrong one, leading to disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, after receiving the postal acknowledgement marked 'insufficient address,' she submitted it as 'not received' to higher authorities. She added that the disciplinary authority thoroughly considered the evidence and rightly imposed the minimal punishment, which does not warrant judicial interference. Therefore, she requested the dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the arguments and perused the papers with utmost care.
The issue is confined and pertains to the misconduct of the petitioner. It is uncontested that she was serving as an Assistant Traffic Superintendent at Nelamangala Depot of KSRTC, Bengaluru Central Division. On 28.03.2014, the Chief Traffic Manager instructed the Divisional Controller of the KBS Division to negotiate a license agreement with M/s Dhoom Company (Omini Visuals Media) for the display of advertisement hoardings at the Devanahalli trumpet bus stand, in accordance with the Circular dated 24.09.2013. It is noted that, in sending the selection letter and subsequent communications to M/s Dhoom Company, the petitioner used the wrong address. She explained that a Junior Assistant had incorrectly typed the address. When the letter was returned marked 'insufficient address', she presented the file to higher authorities, stating that M/s Dhoom Company had not received the letters and was not interested in the agreement.
It is crucial to recognise that the petitioner, as a superior officer, must perform her duties diligently, with caution, and with care. She cannot blame the Junior Assistant for any mistake. Instead of engaging in a blame game as a senior officer, she should have verified the correct address before sending the communication. She failed to do this. As a result, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Disciplinary Authority reviewed the evidence and rightly imposed a minor punishment. The petitioner's argument that she should be exonerated like her Junior Assistant must necessarily fail.
For the reasons stated above, the petition is devoid of merit; accordingly, it is rejected.
Because of rejection of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.