The Board of Directors The Management of KSRTC Central Offices vs Gulam E. Ghouse

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The respondent was working as Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Gulbarga. There were 34 enquiries conducted as a delinquent officer of the KSRTC. The respondent was the disciplinary authority and the enquiry reports were submitted to the respondent for passing necessary orders. The respondent came to be transferred on 29.1.1990. The respondent on the date when he received the transfer order is said to have passed orders on 34 disciplinary proceedings. It is in the charge that in respect of 33 cases, orders were already made and formally. signed on the date of the receipt of the transfer order. The enquiry officer had found 34 officials guilty. It is in the charge against the respondent that in some cases, he has arbitrarily reduced the penalty of dismissal to a lesser penalty without seeking prior approval of the Managing Director.

In the writ petition, learned Single Judge has reduced the penalty of dismissal to denial of backwages to an extent of 50% from the date of dismissal till his retirement and continuity of service. The management aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge has filed this appeal.

Sri. R.I. D''sa, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the charge levied against the respondent is grave. The respondent has arbitrarily in some cases, reduced the proposed penalty of dismissal to lesser penalty without necessary approval from the Managing Director. The said conduct of hastily signing all 34 orders on the date of his relief would suggest corrupt motive. Therefore, the order of dismissal passed is just and proper and the order of learned Single Judge is to be set aside.

On thorough consideration of the facts and the materials, it is to be seen that in the charge there is specific mention that in 33 cases, the orders were already made and only formally the respondent has signed the orders on the date of his relief. With regard to the impropriety of reducing the proposed penalty of dismissal to a lesser penalty without approval of Managing Director, may be misconduct. But the said orders are not challenged or set aside. The charge of formally signing all the orders is for extraneous consideration. There is no direct material to substantiate the said charge. The said charge is sought to be substantiated by way of inference. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in reducing the penalty of dismissal to denial of backwages from the date of dismissal to the date of retirement does not call for interference. In that view, writ appeal is dismissed.