Skip to content


Devaraj Urs Vs. General Manager, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 94 of 1966
Judge
Reported inAIR1969Kant225; AIR1969Mys225; ILR1969KAR113; (1968)2MysLJ631
AppellantDevaraj Urs
RespondentGeneral Manager, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and anr.
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [ram mohan reddy, j] quantum of compensation bodily injury - held, bodily injury is to be treated as deprivation entitling the claimant to damages, the amount of which varies according to the gravity of the injury. deprivation due to injuries brings with it there consequences, viz., (i) loss of earning and earning capacity; (ii) expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself; (iii) loss or diminution in full pleasures and joys of living. further, although it is not possible to equate money with human suffering or personal deprivation, the court has duty to make an attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. while considering deprivation, the court should have regard to the gravity and..........was dismissed, an order of dismissal should be preceded by an independent enquiry by the deputy general manager of the corporation in the bangalore division but that no such independent enquiry was conducted by that deputy general manager.3. the thirteenth standing order as it stood when the petitioner was dismissed reads:'standing order no. xiii--award of punishment : no order of fine, suspension, discharge or dismissal shall be executed unless as ordered by the deputy general manager, bangalore division. the deputy general manager may order such enquiry as he thinks fit before passing orders provided that in cases where punishment of dismissal is involved, the deputy general manager shall hold an independent enquiry and pass orders.' this amended standing order displaced the.....
Judgment:

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. The petitioner who was a conductor in the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation was dismissed by the Divisional Controller of the Mysore Division of that Corporation on charges of misconduct. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the General Manager was dismissed.

2. In this writ petition in which we are asked to quash the orders made by the Divisional Controller and the General Manager, Mr. Shivaramiah raised the contention that under the standing orders as they stood on October 29, 1964, when the petitioner was dismissed, an order of dismissal should be preceded by an independent enquiry by the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation in the Bangalore Division but that no such independent enquiry was conducted by that Deputy General Manager.

3. The thirteenth standing order as it stood when the petitioner was dismissed reads:

'Standing Order NO. XIII--Award of Punishment : No order of fine, suspension, discharge or dismissal shall be executed unless as ordered by the Deputy General Manager, Bangalore Division. The Deputy General Manager may order such enquiry as he thinks fit before passing orders provided that in cases where punishment of dismissal is involved, the Deputy General Manager shall hold an independent enquiry and pass orders.'

This amended standing order displaced the old standing order, and it is clear from the standing order as it stands after its amendment that no dismissal of an employee of the Corporation is possible unless the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division of the Corporation holds an independent enquiry.

4. Mr. Udaya Shankar appearing for the Corporation explained to us that the post of a Divisional Controller of the Corporation is equivalent to the post of a Deputy General Manager and that we should equip rate the enquiry made by the Division Controller with one made by the Deputy General Manager to whom the thirteenth standing order refers.

5. But, such equiparation is not possible for the reason that the thirteenth standing order constitutes the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division as the authority which should hold the independent enquiry directed by it. If that enquiry could have been conducted by any Deputy General Manager of the Corporation, it might have been possible for Mr. Udaya Shankar to succeed in his contention that the enquiry conducted by the Divisional Controller, if his post is equal to the post of a Deputy General Manager is sufficient enquiry for the purpose of the thirteenth standing order. But, it is admitted that the thirteenth standing order as it now stands is the product of a truce between the Corporation and its employees, and if that standing order expressly constitutes the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division as the authority by which the independent enquiry should be conducted, an enquiry by a Divisional Controller although his post is equivalent to that of a Deputy General Manager, can be no substitute for the enquiry which should be conducted only by the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division.

6. The petitioner raised the contention that the Divisional Controller had no power to inflict a punishment on him, even in the explanation which he submitted, which was not even referred either by the Divisional Controller or by the General Manager.

7. So, we allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the Divisional Controller and also the order made by the General Manager in appeal.

8. The petitioner will be entitled to all the advantages and benefits flowing from this order including reinstatement, arrears of pay, increments and the like.

9. No costs.

10. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //