The Karnataka High Court recently confirmed the dismissal of a Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) driver who secured the job by submitting a forged school document, following inquiry and court cases that lasted over 24 years.
The driver, Malurappa, secured the job with the BMTC in 1988, submitting a school transfer certificate that indicated that he had completed schooling until Class 9. However, this certificate was later found to be a forged document, and the BMTC began an inquiry against him in 2001.
The inquiry found that he had only studied up to Class 1, whereas the minimum qualification for his post was education up to Class 4. The BMTC dismissed him from service in 2005 and he challenged his dismissal before a labour court, which restored the driver’s position in 2016, stating that the punishment was excessively harsh.
In 2017, the BMTC filed a petition with the Karnataka High Court challenging the labour court ruling. In February 2024, a single-judge bench of the high court set aside the labour court verdict and upheld the BMTC’s decision to terminate Marulappa, who subsequently filed an appeal before a division bench against the single-judge bench’s order.
Malurappa’s counsel argued that as per a 1983 circular, grounds of suppression of facts could not be a cause for termination of an employee who had rendered service for a considerable period of time. It was pointed out that at the time of termination, he had been driving for the BMTC for 17 years. He also argued that the case of K VS Ram vs BMTC before the Supreme Court would be in Malurappa’s favour.
On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court restored a labour court’s decision, reinstating BMTC driver K V S, who was accused of using a false transfer certificate and dismissed in 2004.
In the July 25 order dismissing Malurappa’s appeal, the division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi, disagreed with the driver’s counsel’s argument, pointing out that in the case of Ram, there had been a gap of 14 years between serving the articles of charge and his dismissal.
Story continues below this ad
The court explained that in the case of Malurappa, the articles of charge were issued to him on June 30, 2001 and the findings of the inquiry officer were furnished to him in 2003. It said the appellant was further given an opportunity to respond and he was terminated from the service on July 27, 2005.
“Thus, there was no delay in conducting the disciplinary enquiry,” the court noted, adding that the circular cited by the petitioner was not relevant to the facts of this case.