H.S. SHIVEGOWDA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - workman is assailing the impugned order of punishment bearing No.KST/CO/CEM(P)/DLF/M- 1/58/15/080/17-18 dtd. 30/6/2017 at Annexure-K passed by the second respondent and the impugned order bearing No.KST/CO/TR/APPEAL/5115/17-18 dtd. 17/11/2017 at Annexure - M.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, petitioner is referred as workman and the respondents as Corporation.

(3.) The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that, the workman was appointed as an artisan on 16/7/1986 and on promotion was working as Assistant Works Superintendent at Regional Workshop, Hassan, and on attaining the age of the superannuation on 31/7/2017 he has been retired from the service. It is stated that when the petitioner was in service, on the report submitted by the Security and Vigilance Officer, KSRTC dtd. 25/6/2015, the second respondent had initiated disciplinary proceedings against four officials of the Corporation and individual articles of charges were issued against them. It is stated that the workman submitted his reply to the articles of charges framed on 04. 09.2015 enclosing the office order 2/3/2015 issued by the Works Manager, Regional Workshop, Hassan, denying the charges levelled against him. It is stated that the second respondent-Corporation, without considering the reply submitted by the workman, has appointed the Enquiry Officer and conducted enquiry on the alleged misconduct and submitted the report holding the workman is guilty of charges. Thereafter, the second respondent - Corporation has issued show-cause notice along with the report of the Enquiry Officer. The workman replied to the said show-cause notice. However, overlooking the reply submitted by the workman, the second respondent - Corporation accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment by reducing the basic pay of the petitioner by one incremental scale for a period of three years and further ordered that the petitioner is not entitled for gratuity and other consequential benefits for the said period and treated the suspension period as suspension vide order dtd. 30/6/2017.