BMTC Driver’s Four-Increment Pay Cut Over Crash Stays Set Aside as Karnataka HC Upholds Finding That Corporation Failed to Prove Negligence

The respondent, a BMTC driver, was charged with negligence after a bus he was driving collided with a Scorpio car on 6 May 2006.

The Enquiry Officer found the charges unproved, but the disciplinary authority disagreed and imposed a penalty of reduction of basic pay by four annual increments with cumulative effect.

The Industrial Tribunal set aside the penalty in I.D. No. 121/2012. BMTC challenged the Tribunal’s award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may review an Industrial Tribunal’s award for error or illegality warranting interference.

When a disciplinary authority disagrees with an Enquiry Officer’s findings, it must consider the evidence on record, give reasons for its disagreement, and reach its own conclusion on the available material.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent for this principle.

The disciplinary authority’s order did not discuss or assess the evidence adduced in the enquiry.

Its conclusion that the respondent was negligent rested on the bus having sustained damage and the respondent not having lodged a complaint against the Scorpio driver; the Court found no other evidence cited to support the charge.

In the absence of sufficient evidence and reasoned consideration of the enquiry record, the Tribunal was entitled to find that BMTC had failed to prove the charges.

The High Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the award.

It dismissed BMTC’s writ petition, leaving in place the award setting aside the punishment.