S. Govindaraju Vs The Divisional Controller, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.@mdashThe appellant was appointed as a ''Badli'' conductor in the respondent-Corporation during the year 1984. His services came to be terminated by holding that his record of service was not satisfactory and therefore, his name was removed from the select list as per order dated 2/4-5-1985 and the said order was challenged by the appellant-petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9171 of 1985 which culminated in the order dated 15th April, 1986 made in Civil Appeal No. 1339 of 1986, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court set aside the order of termination on the ground that the removal of the name of the appellant from the select list was punitive in nature and therefore, he should have been given an opportunity to put forth his case. The appellant was reinstated into service pursuant to the said order.

2. Thereafter, the respondent served a charge-sheet on the appellant alleging the following charges.

a. That, the first party had failed to issue tickets to three passengers travelling in a group from Adugodi to Shanthinagar despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs. 2/- from each at their boarding place itself.

b. That, the first party had neither collected the fare of Rs. 4/- from one passenger travelling from BTM Layout-Mayo hall nor issued ticket to him.

c. That, the first party had neither collected the fare of Rs. 4/- from three passengers travelling from BTM Layout to Mayo hall nor issued tickets to them.

d. That, the first party had neither collected the fare of Rs. 3/- from 3 passengers travelling from Kalyanamantapa to Mayo hall nor issued tickets to them.

3. The appellant denied the said charges. But the charges were proved in the domestic enquiry on the basis of which the Corporation dismissed him from service.

4. The appellant raised an industrial dispute by making an application u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Competent Authority. Since the conciliation failed, the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court rejected the claim of the appellant.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 14770 of 2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

6. Hence the above writ appeal.

7. Heard both sides.

8. We have given consideration to the submissions of both the sides, who have reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge.

9. No illegality or irregularity in the impugned disciplinary proceeding is alleged on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner is to the quantum of punishment with reference to the charges in question. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the charges are relating to the non-issue of tickets of Rs. 4/- and Rs. 3/-, the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate.

10. In our considered opinion, the law on the point is well-settled. In Devendra Swamy Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn., the Apex Court, while dealing with the scope of judicial review, particularly with reference to the penalty or punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, held that it may not be proper for the High Court that once the charge of misconduct is proved and there is no illegality, after a due enquiry giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner is compliance with the principles of natural justice, it is immaterial whether the amount of defalcation is small and the penalty of dismissal is harsh.

11. In the case of The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sohan Lal etc., , the act of not issuing tickets to the passengers by the bus conductor, as in the instant case, was considered as a serious misconduct and the Apex Court held that such a conduct not only lead to the monetary loss to the Corporation, but also would amount to loss of confidence and therefore any order of reinstatement of such an employee by virtue of judicial order, is an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity, hence the question of moulding the relief does not arise.

12. The Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane, has held as follows.:

12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the Corporation''s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal.

13. This Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, , held in similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment.

13. Again in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal, , where a similar question arose as to whether the punishment of dismissal awarded to a conductor who was guilty of non-issuing the ticket as disproportionate, it is held as follows.:

7. ... So far as the guilt of the petitioner is concerned, in the domestic enquiry it has been found that the petitioner is guilty of not issuing tickets to the twenty passengers and the same finding of the domestic enquiry has been upheld by Labour Court in the High Court. The petitioner was a Conductor and holding the position of trust. If an incumbent like the petitioner starts misappropriating the money by not issuing a ticket and pocketing the money thereby causing loss to the Corporation then this is a serious misconduct.

14. Similarly, the same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh, holding that when an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation''s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment.

15. In view of the above well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. If that was the State of affairs of the appellant-petitioner in the first year of service and if such persons are allowed to be let-off with light punishment, then that will send a wrong signal to the other persons similarly situated. Such instances should not be dealt with lightly.

16. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.