HC rejects KSRTC point on withdrawing bus conductor's increment

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: A bus conductor who was found to have failed to issue tickets to five passengers with a total worth of Rs 25 in 1997 was punished by withdrawing his one salary increment. The punishment order was set aside by the Industrial Tribunal and a single judge bench of the High Court in 2012.

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) had challenged this before a division bench of the HC. The matter was disposed of recently. The Division Bench of the HC comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal dismissed the additional contentions of the KSRTC that as per rules the punishment was a minor one.

“From a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the appellant (KSRTC) had not raised any ground before the Tribunal to show that the punishment imposed upon the respondent is not a major punishment, but a minor one as per the Service Regulations of the appellant,” the division bench said. The bench said that it was the failure of the KSRTC to bring the issue to the notice of the Tribunal and the Single Judge.

“Such failure on the part of the appellant to bring to the notice of either the Tribunal or the learned Single Judge the relevant Service Regulations cannot be a reason for us to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is based on the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits and requires to be dismissed,” the division bench said.

MC Satish, who was working with the KSRTC as a bus conductor was found by a checking officer on May 23, 1997 while discharging duty on a bus between Davangere and Chinnasamudra. It was found that he had not collected the fare of Rs 5 each from five passengers. Based on a report and enquiry the disciplinary authority of KSRTC imposed the punishment by reducing his basic pay with one incremental stage with cumulative effect.

Satish challenged this before the Industrial Tribunal in 2009. The Tribunal held that the order of punishment which is a major one cannot be legally sustained and modified the order of punishment by withholding one increment of the year 1997 without cumulative effect for a period of one year.

The KSRTC challenged this before the single judge bench. The single judge did not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. It observed that the workman was still with the KSRTC and there was no further default on the part of the workman and dismissed the petition in 2022. The KSRTC then approached the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench it was argued by the counsel for the KSRTC that there were as many as 182 cases out of which 76 cases against Satish were from the year 2012.

The HC however said that “this ground is raised for the first time in this appeal and no such ground was urged before the single judge. Dismissing the appeal, the HC said, “The only default that one can find is lack of communication between the appellant (KSRTC) and its counsel and for such a communication gap, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with.”