DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. R. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is to challenge the correctness of the order dtd. 24/9/2013 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.14971/2013.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts that led to the filing of W.P.No.14971/2013 are that the respondent herein was employed as a driver by the appellant in a bus which was charted from Mysore to Male Mahadeshwara Hills. It is stated that on 15/2/1991 at 11.30 p.m, the respondent and two other drivers, namely, Mr. M. Nagaraju and M.Shivappa outraged the modesty of a woman, who was on her way to Male Mahadeshwara temple along with her husband. It is stated that a complaint was lodged against the respondent with the jurisdictional Police, who registered Crime No.8/1991 for the offence punishable under Sec. 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and apprehended the respondent and seized the bus that he used to flee from Male Mahadeshwara hills. Based on this complaint, the report of the security officers of the appellant was secured and an articles of charge was issued on 15/7/1991. An enquiry officer was appointed, before whom the respondent contested the proceedings while another delinquent did not contest. The additional security officer of the appellant was examined as MW.1, who marked documents as Exs.M1 and M2. The respondent led his evidence as DW.1.

(3.) The enquiry officer submitted his report dtd. 31/7/2002 holding that the charges were proved. Based upon the report of the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order in terms of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 and reduced three increments with cumulative effect in terms of the Order dtd. 30/11/2002. Long thereafter, the respondent sought reference of an Industrial Dispute in Ref. No.128/2007 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, (henceforth referred to as "Tribunal"). In terms of the Order dtd. 30/7/2011, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry held was proper and valid. Thereafter, the appellant examined its official as MW.1 and marked Exs.M1 to 13 and another witness as MW.2. The respondent examined himself as WW.2 and marked Exs.W1 to 6.