-1-

WP No. 4130 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SHAHANAZ BEGUM,
D/O HUSSAIN SHARIFF,
AGED 47 YEARS,
R/AT C/O MURTHUJA SHARIEFF,
8TH CROSS, SADASHIVA NAGAR,
TUMKUR.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

K.S.R.T.C., TUMKUR DIVISION,
TUMKUR-575 201.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS +FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

Digitally signed by
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
R HEMALATHA THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 12.6.2018 PASSED BY THE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR IN
KARNATAKA
I.D.NO.3/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN
SO FOR AS IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF CONTINUITY OF
SERVICE, BACK WAGES AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER

The petitioner when working as Junior Assistant in

the respondent - Corporation was issued with article of
charges for having remained unauthorisedly absent from
 -2-
WP No. 4130 of 2019

16.1.2014 till the issuance of article of charges. The

petitioner - workman having not reported to duty, and also
not having participated in the domestic enquiry, the
Corporation passed an order dismissing the workman from
service, against which, she raised a dispute under Section
10(1)(c) and (d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The
domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was held
to be not fair and proper. Thereafter, she examined herself
as PW1 and marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P16 and
the Corporation to prove its case examined two witnesses
as RW1 and RW2 and marked the documents as Exs.R1 to
R11.

2. The learned District Judge, after examining the

evidence on record, has held the charge against the
petitioner is proved, and after having held that the charge
against the petitioner was proved, however, held that the
punishment imposed was not proportionate to the gravity
of charge, and accordingly directed the Corporation to
reinstate the petitioner into service without any continuity
of service and back wages, against which, the petitioner is
before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that, having regard to the gravity of charge, the learned
District Judge has committed an error in not granting
continuity of service. Hence, he submits that the award
passed by the learned District Judge requires to be
 -3-
WP No. 4130 of 2019

modified by directing the Corporation to reinstate the

petitioner with continuity of service.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent - Corporation submits that, where
reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser
punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service
nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary
consequence of such reinstatement. In support, she places
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J K
Synthetics Ltd. -vs- K P Agrawal and another (2007) 2 SCC
433).

5. Considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

decision at para-18 has held as follows:

19…..When the punishment is reduced by a

court as being excessive, there can be either a
direction for reinstatement or a direction for a
nominal lump sum compensation. And if
reinstatement is directed, it can be effective
either prospectively from the date of such
substitution of punishment (in which event,
there is no continuity of service) or
retrospectively, from the date on which the
penalty of termination was imposed (in which
event, there can be a consequential direction
relating to continuity of service). What requires
to be noted in cases where finding of
misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment
is interfered with (as contrasted from cases
where termination is held to be illegal or void) is
 -4-
WP No. 4130 of 2019

that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if

reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically
with retrospective effect from the date of
termination. Therefore, where reinstatement is
a consequence of imposition of a lesser
punishment, neither back wages nor continuity
of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a
natural or necessary consequence of such
reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is
held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a
consequential benefit arising from imposition of
a lesser punishment, award of back wages for
the period when the employee has not worked,
may amount to rewarding the delinquent
employee and punishing the employer for taking
action for the misconduct committed by the
employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in
such cases, even where continuity of service is
directed, it should only be for purposes of
pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for
other benefits like increments, promotions, etc."

7. In view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the petitioner though
is directed to be reinstated into service on imposition of
lesser punishment, is not entitled for continuity of service
from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement of service.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER

i) Writ petition is dismissed.

ii) It is made clear that the workman is not

entitled for continuity of service from the date of dismissal
i.e. dated 13.10.2014 till the passing of the impugned
order i.e. dated 12.6.2018.
 -5-
WP No. 4130 of 2019

iii) The service rendered prior to the date of

dismissal is reckoned for all purposes.

Sd/-
JUDGE

BKM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40