K SIDDARAMAIAH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order of the Managing Director and the Appellate Authority of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation by which the order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner was set-aside but without directing payment of any backwages for the period during which he was out of duty.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow: The petitioner was a permanent conductor in the service of the Corporation. A Criminal case was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was found guilty of the charge. Thereafter, on the basis of the conduct which had led to his conviction action was initiated under Regulation 28. The said Regulation provides that no inquiry is necessary when penalty is sought to be imposed on the Corporation servant on conduct which has led to his conviction. The disciplinary authority, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of the conduct which had led to his conviction and after considering his reply, made an order on 8-3-1985 imposing penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. The petitioner however had preferred an appeal before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal No. 1/1985. By an order dated 26-3-987 made in the Criminal Appeal the conviction and sentence were set-aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 6-3-1987 to the Managing Director against the order of the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. The Appeallate Authority entertained the appeal and disposed of the same on merits. The relevant portion of the order reads:

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that as he had been exonerated of the charges in the Criminal Appeal, the Appellate Authority ought to have treated the entire period during which the petitioner was absent from duty as duty and should have also directed the payment of full emoluments. In support of the above contention, the petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in DEGANETTI C.B. Vs. K.S.R.T.C.,(1983(2) Kar.L.J. 67 Short Notes of Cases Page 28) as also the decision in Writ Petition No. 18388/84 (H.M.KAZI Vs. Managing Director). In both these cases, the Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal of the Corporation servant concerned, but had imposed the condition that he would not be entitled to the arrears of salary. That portion of the order of the Appellate Authority was set-aside and liberty was given to the petitioner therein to initiate appropriate proceeding under the Labour Law for recovery of the amount.