Bus stand delayed for 12 yrs; HC upholds punishment

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: For causing the delay of a bus stand for 12 years, the chief mechanical engineer of the Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) was imposed a penalty of recovery of the amount towards the loss caused and also the reduction of his wage by four cumulative stages.

He approached the High Court stating that the punishment was disproportionate. The Division Bench of the HC however upheld the single-judge order upholding the appellate authority and disciplinary authority orders.

“It is a case of culpable negligence of gross size, if not one involving dishonesty and distrust, to say the least. In a growing population like ours, the Bus Stand of this kind was to be established long ago. The public at large has been put to a huge inconvenience and this factor rightly weighed with the authorities and the learned Single Judge,” the HC said.

The engineer had caused the delay of 12 years for the bus stand project from 2009 to 2021. The division bench said that the punishment imposed was not heavy.

“In any case, it cannot be said that the penalty of recovery of loss coupled with downgrading the pay scale of the appellant by four stages in accumulation is on a much higher side as to shake the conscience of the Court. We are not inclined to agree with the counsel for the appellant that the findings of guilt are alterable, ” it said.

S Mallikarjuna, the retired chief mechanical engineer had filed the appeal which was heard by Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit.

His advocate argued that “our system operates on the principle of proportionality and a measure that does not accord with the same is unsustainable.”

The division bench however noted that procedure had been followed and a due inquiry was conducted.

“Vigilance Officer of the KSRTC has specifically stated about the involvement of the appellant in the entire episode. The penalty order made by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority in a broad-based appeal and therefore learned Single Judge is more than justified in not interfering in the writ petition,” the HC noted.

Rejecting the appeal, the HC said, “Despite the vehement submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we do not see anything either as to the finding of guilt or as to the penalty being as disproportionate as to shake our conscience.” (WA 735/2023)