AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
It is the case of the petitioners that both of them were employed as Mechanics Grade-II with BESCOM represented by the respondents. It transpires that they had put in 25 years of service as on the date of the petition. They had a blemishless record of service and they were honest, sincere and dutiful in their discharge of work It transpires that the petitioners were transferred to a remote place and since the petitioners were aware that there were vacancies at Tiptur Head Quarters of the respondent, the petitioners had sought to make a request to their superiors namely, the first respondent to consider their transfer to Tiptur Head Quarters instead of the place proposed. It is the claim of the petitioners that when they were in the chambers of the first respondent, four Office bearers of the Employees Union namely Lingadevaru, Kumaraswamy, A.M. Mariyappa and Ramalingaiah had also come there and they started picking up a quarrel with the petitioners alleging that they cannot directly approach the first respondent seeking change of their transfer orders without their permission, In the scuffle between the petitioners and the Office bearers, the petitioners were held to be aggressors and a charge sheet was framed against the petitioners and an enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority having imposed the punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as leave to their credit and an entry having been made in the service records in this regard, the petitioner had Questioned the same by way of an appeal and the appeal having been dismissed the petitioners are before this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would seek to assert that the petitioners never created any commotion as was sought to be made out. The Office bearers of the Employees Union were indeed the culprits who had created commotion in the chambers of the first respondent and notwithstanding the same, the petitioners have been named as delinquents and being responsible for having created such commotion. On the other hand, there was no independent witness and the charges against the petitioners accepting the self serving evidence of the office bearers who in fact were responsible to have created the disturbance and the petitioners were in fact attacked by such office bearers and were abused in foul language and therefore, it is a false case foisted on the petitioners at the behest of the office bearers and the respondents have succumbed to the pressure, tactics adopted by the office bearers and it is only in order to appease them, proceedings have been initiated and findings have been recorded against the petitioners. It is this, which is sought to be emphasised by taking this Court through record and it is contended that withholding of an increment results in financial loss to the petitioners, one of whom has retired from service and the other is on the verge of retirement. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks reconsideration of the order of punishment, which is without any basis and clearly foisted against them.
With regard to the several grounds that are raised in the petition, the consideration of the present petition would turn on findings of fact. It is contended that P.W.2 was indeed the leader of the group, which attacked the petitioners and P.W.1 was the first respondent, in whose chamber the incident is said to have occurred. In that view of the matter the consistent evidence of others namely P.Ws.3 and 4 who were present at the scene and P.W.5 who was an independent witness corroborate the evidence against the petitioners to the effect that they were under the influence of alcohol and it is they who entered the chambers in a foul mood and attacked the office bearers for having got the orders of transfer issued against them. It is in this background that proceedings were held against the petitioners and the charges against the petitioners have been held established. In that view of the matter, since the findings are based on material evidence, eventhough the learned counsel for he petitioners would endeavour to point out that there is inconsistency insofar as an independent witness, D.W.5 has deposed otherwise, the findings of the enquiry officer are to the effect that the charges have been established. In that view of the matter, there is no warrant for interference with the findings of fact and in any event, the punishment imposed is of a minor nature would also does not warrant interference on the ground that it was possibly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.