State Can't Take Contradictory Stands In Disciplinary Proceedings & Before Court: Karnataka HC Directs KSRTC To Devise SOP
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Managing Director of State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to institute a proper Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure that no contradictory stand is taken by any of the disciplinary authorities and/or the authorities who file written statements in the Motor Accident claim proceedings. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj...
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Managing Director of State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) to institute a proper Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure that no contradictory stand is taken by any of the disciplinary authorities and/or the authorities who file written statements in the Motor Accident claim proceedings.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "if any such event occurs, necessary disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against such persons by following the applicable rules." It added, "Instructions to be also issued that a statement to be made in any written statement filed in a Motor Vehicle Accident claim petition, if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated or not."
The bench made the observations while hearing a petition filed by the corporation challenging an award passed by the Principal District Judge at Tumkur in 2018, by which it directed the corporation to reinstate Ganganna, a driver who was involved in a road accident in 2015.
The judge had allowed the claim petition of the workman and set aside the dismissal order directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workman into service with continuity of service and without back wages from the date of dismissal, but withholding three increments.
During the hearing the bench called for the defence taken by the corporation in the motor vehicle accident Claim Petition, filed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
On going through the same the bench noted that the Road Transport Corporation has certified the driving of the respondent-workman and has categorically stated that the bus was being driven slowly and carefully on the left side of the road and it is further alleged that the rider of the motor vehicle came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the front side of the bus. It was contended that sole responsibility for the accident rested with the rider of the motorcycle, and on that basis, it was contended that the Road Transport Corporation ought not to be made responsible for the compensation which has been sought for in the M.V. case.
However, the bench noted that the Divisional Controller of K.B.S. Division was of the categorical opinion that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and the same was informed to KSRTC Managing Director by way of a fax message.
Thus, the bench observed that it remains to be explained by the Managing Director as to how the defence in M.V. Case was taken that the driver was driving in a proper manner and that it is the two wheeler rider who was driving in a rash and negligent manner.
"The Road Transport Corporation, in order to escape its liability in the M.A.C.T. matter, has taken up the contention that the driver was driving in a proper manner and rider of the two wheeler was driving in a rash and negligent manner but on the other hand in the disciplinary proceedings it is contended that its own driver was rash and negligent...It is required for any litigant more so an instrumentality of the state to adhere to one set of facts and not change the set of facts depending on its convenience and/or requirements."
It held that once the driver stood absolved by the said written statement, it is impermissible for the Road Transport Corporation to initiate the disciplinary enquiry.
The Court said that it was for the KSTRC to have come clean and clearly and categorically stated in M.V. case that it was the driver's fault for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and offered to make payment of the compensation due in the said proceedings. "It is only in order to try and escape the payment of compensation that a false stand has been taken by the Road Transport Corporation, which is established to be false by the contents of the present writ petition as also by the M.A.C.T. in its order dated 08.09.2016 in the aforesaid M.V.Cs."
Further it said, "It is also relevant to take note that not only was the precious time of the M.A.C.T. wasted by taking the said false defence offered by the Road Transport Corporation, but more importantly, the victim of the road accident was denied immediate relief, and succour by way of payment of compensation. The said payment being delayed until the finding being rendered by the M.A.C.T. after evidence being led. These kind of actions on part of the Road Transport Corporation are required to be deprecated and are deprecated."
Accordingly it dismissed the petition.
Case Title: THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. GANGANNA
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24370 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
Date of Order: 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
Appearance: ANEPPANAVAR R B.,ADVOCATE for petitioner; L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE for respondent