Karnataka High Court upholds dismissal of KSRTC conductor for repeated misconduct

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal from service of a conductor with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi observed that the conductor was involved in over 65 cases of misconduct, most of which were related non issuance of tickets.

The conductor Basha, a resident of Peresandra village of Chikkaballapura taluk, was appointed as a driver-cum-conductor in 2009. During a check at Yelahanka stage point on January 13, 2019, it was found that Basha had not issued tickets to the passengers. The two passengers, traveling from Mekhri Circle to Gauribidanur, had not been issued tickets of Rs 71 each. Charged with misconduct, the conductor in his reply blamed the passengers saying that they were wearing headphones, busy on mobile phones and had forgotten to take the tickets from him.

During the enquiry, his past 57 instances of misconduct, which included five serious red mark cases and three red mark cases, were considered and Basha was dismissed from service on March 5, 2020. Basha challenged this order and the Labour Court partly allowed his petition. The Labour Court set aside the punishment of dismissal but ordered withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect and all other consequential benefits.

The KSRTC challenged this order and the single bench noted that the Labour Court was not justified in pardoning a habitual offender by setting aside the order of punishment. The single bench had also noted that Basha was punished on sixty-five occasions.

After the review was rejected Basha moved an appeal. The division bench noted that though at the first blush, the punishment of dismissal on account of non issue of tickets is harsh, it is also necessary to bear in mind the past conduct. The bench also noted that though the conductor was called upon to improve the conduct, there was no improvement.

“The number of cases of misconduct has spiraled to over 65. Given the past conduct of the appellant, the punishment imposed cannot be considered disproportionately excessive. Clearly, the employer cannot be compelled to suffer the repeated misconduct on the part of its employee and to continue the employment of an employee, who has steadfastly failed to improve and continues to repeatedly misconduct himself. Viewed in this perspective, the punishment imposed on the appellant does not shock the conscience of this Court,” the division bench said.