- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 13635 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K S NANDAKUMAR, S/O LATE K SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER AT KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN, R/O 5TH CROSS ADLIMANE ROAD, ADARSH NAGAR, HASSAN - 573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KASHINATH J D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KARNATAKALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. BOARD OF DIRECTOR AND PETITIONER AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU - 560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE DATED 24/26.09.2018 PASSED BY THE R1 AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2020 PASSED BY THE R2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2018 by 1st respondent and also the order dated 25.06.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority/2nd respondent, which are marked at Annexures-A and B respectively. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent/Corporation. He was working as Divisional Mechanical Engineer in Kumta and Sirsi Division of the Corporation. On the basis of a complaint dated 01.02.2015 which is received on 06.03.2015 by the respondent Corporation, the Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated after following the procedure. The petitioner to whom the notice was sent has denied the charges levelled against him. Accordingly - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 the enquiry was held and five charges were levelled against the petitioner. The gist of the aforementioned charges would indicate that the petitioner has failed to ensure that the vehicles owned and maintained by the respondent/Corporation have not been properly washed and maintained and the petitioner has raised invoice for higher amount than what is prescribed and the petitioner has availed the services of other employees of the Corporation, who are not supposed to wash and clean the vehicles. Charge is also levelled stating that employer has sanctioned excess leave to some of the employees of the Corporation by contravening the Rules of the Corporation. 3. The petitioner participated in the enquiry, so also the respondents. On both sides, the evidence has been led. The enquiry officer after conclusion of the enquiry has submitted the report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been duly established. 4. The Disciplinary Authority after the receipt of the report has issued show-cause notice to the petitioner to answer on the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 punishment sought to be imposed. The petitioner again responded to the said show-cause notice and prayed for dropping the charges. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the materials on record has imposed the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect and also ordered recovery of Rs.8,632/- which is said to be the loss caused on account of the act and omission on the part of the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority in terms of the impugned order dated 25.06.2020 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the charges framed against the petitioner are vague and no specific finding is recorded to hold that the charges have been established. It is also his contention that the enquiry officer in his report has stated that some of the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been established for want of evidence. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 Having given such report, the enquiry officer could not have held that the other charges framed against the petitioner have been proved. It is also his contention that enquiry is held in the year 2017 in respect of an incident that is said to have taken place between 2014-2015 based on a complaint of the year 2015. It is also his contention that there is no finding by the enquiry officer that as to which of the charges are specifically proved. The reply submitted by the petitioner as well as his evidence in the enquiry have not been properly appreciated, is the submission. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, would contend that the petitioner himself in his defence statement has admitted the charges. He has tried to justify his act on the premise that his act has not caused loss to the Corporation, on the other hand, he has ensured that the vehicles maintained by the Corporation are properly cleaned by availing the services of the employees of the Corporation, to meet the higher rate of cleaning charges demanded by the out- sourced workers, who were required to be outsourced to clean the vehicles of the Corporation. Thus, the learned counsel would contend that since the petitioner himself has admitted - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 the fact that he has availed the services of the employees, who are not meant to wash the vehicles, charge in this regard is duly established. It is also her contention that leave has been sanctioned in excess of what is permissible under the Rules, as such the misconduct is also very much established insofar as sanction of excess leave is concerned. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. The following points would arise for consideration :- a. Whether the petitioner has established that the charges levelled against him are not established ? b. Whether the petitioner would establish that the punishment imposed is dis-proportionate to the mis- conduct alleged ? 10. It is relevant to note that the enquiry officer in his report has taken note of the defence set up by the petitioner. The relevant portion of report would read as under :- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 "C¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä °TvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ°è ¥Àæw ¤vÀå 13 ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß WÀlPÀzÀ vÁAwæPÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀéZÀÒUÉƽ¹, CªÀÅUÀ¼À ©®è£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ RÄzÁÝV M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀĨÁ»gÀªÁV ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ vÁAwæPÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ½AzÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀéZÀÒUÉƽ¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV CzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ.8,632/- ©®è£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ°è SÁ¸ÀV PÀÆ° PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ºÀt PÉÆlÖgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ §gÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÀl»rzÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ vÁAwæPÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀéZÀÒUÉƽ¹zÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ©°è£À ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß SÁ¸ÀV PÀÆ° PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, F PÀÄjvÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÁPÁëöåzÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è." 11. On perusal of the aforementioned report/defence statement, it is explicit that the petitioner himself has admitted the fact that he has utilized the services of the employees of Corporation, who are not meant to wash and clean the vehicles. Though the petitioner has tried to justify his act by stating that the said course is adopted to cover the expenses arising from the higher demand from the out-sourced workers, who demanded more than Rs.8.00 to wash each vehicle, the said justification cannot be accepted as the petitioner has no authority to avail the services of the other employees of the Corporation, who are hired for some other purpose. It is also relevant to note that the defence by the petitioner would clearly establish the fact that he has acted contrary to the applicable Rules and Guidelines that he is not supposed to utilize the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 services of other employees of the Corporation to clean and wash the vehicles of the Corporation. This being the position, the Disciplinary Authority has taken the decision to impose a penalty by withholding one increment with cumulative effect and has also quantified the loss caused to the Corporation at Rs.8,632/-, which cannot be said to be illegal, in view of the clear admission on the part of petitioner, who has admitted that he has availed the services of some other employees. It is also forthcoming from the records that to cover the illegal act, the petitioner has raised invoices showing more number of outsourced workers than what had been actually availed by the petitioner. The defence of the petitioner itself would logically lead to the conclusion that the petitioner has raised more number of invoices to cover the expenses incurred for hiring the workers as according to the petitioner the outsourced workers demanded more than Rs.8.00 to wash the vehicles. This being the position, the charge levelled against the petitioner relating to the misconduct alleged is duly established. 12. It is also forthcoming that in the month of June 2015, 2101 vehicles were used and 420 vehicles have been washed. The bills were not raised for 1,681 vehicles, instead of that, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 bills have been raised only for 1,613 vehicles and for 68 vehicles, the bills have not been raised at all. Either this would indicate that 68 vehicles have not been washed, which again indicate dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner or to cover the higher expenses paid to the outsourced employees, the bills were not raised for the remaining 68 vehicles, on the premise that those vehicles have not been washed. This again would prove the charge levelled against the petitioner. 13. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the charges held to be proved against the petitioner, this Court on considering the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect is of the view, that said penalty cannot be said to be disproportionate, so as to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. The First Appellate Authority has also considered these aspects and has confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:560 WP No. 13635 of 2021 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is due for promotion and if such application is filed seeking promotion, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49 CT:VN