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

Devaraj Urs vs General Manager, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Oct 16, 1968

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/375149

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/375149
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: A.R. Somnath Iyer and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 16, 1968
Case Number: Writ Petn. No. 94 of 1966
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- 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...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devaraj Urs

Respondent

General Manager, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1969Kant225; AIR1969Mys225; ILR1969KAR113; (1968)2MysLJ631

Excerpt

.....life will have gone from the appellant, he cannot perhaps ride a bicycle and if he can kick a football, cannot catch one and deprived of the usual forms of recreation which appeal to the ordinary healthy man. the impairment to the right upper arm causing disability of 35% naturally interferes with normal conduct of life or prevents sexual relation, warranting substantial damage on that ground. in fact, the appellant, young and energetic with great ambitions and expectations in life wanting to earn more money, due to the impairment, has occasioned loss of an enjoyable or interesting career too. the disfigurement in the form of a scar as notice by the doctor in his testimony is more serious when the appellant becomes very conscious of the disfigurement and avoids social occasions. the elbow joint in the upper limb in a human frame is of utmost importance, not that the other bones constituting the frame are not. with the partial permanent injury to the upper limb of the appellant, he will have to endure the disability for the rest of his life. in the result, the compensation was enhanced to rs.3,40,420/- with interest at 6% p.a. (rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, happiness, frustration; rs.35,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects; rs.15,000/- towards conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment; rs.50,000/- towards pain, shock , suffering and two fractures to the right upper arm; rs.97,920/- towards loss of future earning due to disability; rs.16,000/- towards loss of earning during laid off period; rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses; rs.25,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and rs.36,500/- towards medical expenses). - 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......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.....

Full 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.

Same Parties Devaraj Urs vs General Manager, Mysore State Road Transport C... Same Subject Service Same Judge A.R. Somnath Iyer and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.

Service