AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Narendar, J. - The appellant in this intra-Court appeal is the petitioner and is impugning the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting his writ petition.
The brief facts are that, the appellant was appointed as a conductor with the respondent-Corporation on 09.09.1987 and later on came to be confirmed in the said post, till he came to be dismissed from service for an act, which is said to have lowered the esteem of the Corporation in the eyes of the public.
The allegations in a nutshell are that, when the appellant was on duty on 10.02.2011 working on Dharwad-Dandeli route, it is alleged that he was in an intoxicated condition and was unable to behave in a proper manner and that physically he was not in a position to issue tickets and discharge his duties causing annoyance to the passengers, which resulted in the annoyed passengers calling upon the Depot Manager and lodging a complaint with regard to the conduct of the appellant who was on duty. The Depot Manager on receipt of the complaint is stated to have requisitioned for the services of an employee, a driver-cum-conductor to take the charge and issue tickets, who in compliance of the direction of the Depot Manager is said to have performed the function and handed over the revenue to the Depot Manager. This act of misconduct was taken note of by the management resulting in appointment of an Inquiry Officer and issuance of charge-sheet dated 23.03.2011. To this charge of consumption of alcohol, the employee has set up the defence that he had been prescribed certain medication for certain ailments; that the prescribed drugs were of a high dosage and he consumed the drugs as per the advise of the doctor and because of the high dosage, he was unable to retain his balance and was not in a position to issue tickets and that he requested his co-worker conductor to issue remaining tickets to the passengers. He denied the allegations that he was under the influence of alcohol.
It is the case of the respondent-Corporation that, after the completion of the journey, the Depot Manager obtained the statement of the duty driver one G.S. Kalal and one Sri. Gudasalamani, driver-cum-conductor, whose services had been requisitioned to ply the route and discharge the duty of the delinquent. After enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority holding that the charge levelled against the appellant stood proved. Pursuant to the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued show-cause notice dated 22.07.2011 calling upon the appellant to submit his version regarding the enquiry'' findings. It is not in dispute that delinquent appellant has submitted his explanation. The disciplinary authority after considering the same passed the order of dismissal seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. as I.D. No. 148/2005 raised by the KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation was pending. The respondent-Corporation while passing dismissal order has also taken note of the fact that delinquent had been found guilty of similar misconduct of performing duty under the influence of alcohol on four earlier occasions. It has also taken into consideration the past misconduct involving 81 cases and concluded that the delinquent is not fit to be continued in the services of the Corporation and has passed the order of dismissal dated 14.06.2012.
Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner preferred a petition before the labour Court, Hubli vide KID No. 60/2012. The labour Court after holding detailed enquiry concluded that the charge of consuming alcohol and not issuing tickets is proved and opined that the misconduct is a serious one and upheld the order of the management dismissing him from service. While so holding, it also relied upon the past conduct of the delinquent of his involvement in 81 cases and concluded that he is a habitual offender and that no sympathy can be extended to him. The petitioner preferred a petition in W.R. No. 108584/2014 calling in question the order of the labour Court dated 04.04.2014. The learned Single Judge after perusal of the records and appreciating the material on record concluded that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has opined that the respondent has indeed satisfactorily demonstrated and proved the misconduct on the part of the delinquent petitioner and rejected the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
The counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of dismissal is bad void ab initio as the order of dismissal from service has been passed without obtaining proper approval of the labour Court, in view of the pendency of the dispute raised by the staff union. He would submit that the labour Court ought to have invoked the provisions of Section 11(a) of I.D. Act and hence, the order is bad and it ought to have taken into consideration the long service of 25 years put in by the delinquent. He would submit that no article of charges has been framed with regard to earlier offences. He would further submit that no breathalyzer test has been conducted to ascertain the allegations of consuming alcohol. He would lastly submit that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct levelled against the appellant.
The allegation that the enquiry/recommendation are void ab initio is without substance. No material is placed before this Court to substantiate the said contention. That apart, it is not in dispute that the delinquent who was put on notice regarding his past conduct also. Hence, the reliance on his past history cannot be faulted with. The only allegation is that there is no proof of his having consumed alcohol and that conclusion could not have been arrived at without conducting breathalyzer test. It is seen that the material on record discloses that on arriving at the depot, the appellant immediately left the premises without making himself available for any medical examination. It is not his case that he was available at the depot and in spite of his availability, the officials did not make arrangements for conducting the test. On the contrary, it is forthcoming in the statement of the witnesses that he left the premises immediately after the bus reached there. That apart, the other aspect that calls for scrutiny is, the defence set up by the appellant. It has been contended that he was under the influence of high dosage of drug for some ailments that he is suffering from. But what are the drugs that he consumed, who is the doctor and what are the ailments he is suffering from are not forthcoming. This was the case, that ought to have been demonstrated by the delinquent. The burden lies on the shoulder of the delinquent to adequately demonstrate his defence. Having failed to do so, it is not open to the appellant to contend otherwise. The persons who have stated against the delinquent-appellant are his co-workers and his superior Depot Manager.
The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has appreciated the fact of the appellant�s involvement in 81 cases in the past including four instances of having been found performing duty under the influence of alcohol and has rightly concurred with the finding of the labour Court that the delinquent is a habitual offender and has not found any extenuating circumstance, which would warrant interference with the order of dismissal. This Court after perusal of the records and after considering all the submissions placed on behalf of the appellant, does not find any good grounds, which warrants interference at the hands of this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out which would necessitate considering the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned herein. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself.