Minor penalties require adherence to procedural fairness, including an inquiry, failing which the penalty is void.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

A. Issue writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the Order dated 31/05/2022, bearing No.Va.Ka.Ra.Sa/ CHI.VI/ SIBBANDI/ GAI.HA/122/22- 1556, issued by the respondent, vide Annexure-L, and.

B. Consequent upon quashing the aforesaid order, issue writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to treat the period of absence of 143 days as on duty for the purpose of payment of Gratuity, and

C. Issue any other writ order as this Hon’ble court may deem fit in circumstances of the case including the cost, in the ends of justice.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Ravi Hegde, appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Madanmohan M. Khannur, appearing for respondent.

3. The issue in the lis revolves around denial of salary and gratuity for a period of 143 days.

4. Learned counsel Sri.M. M. Kannur submits that no enquiry was necessary to be conducted in the light of the penalty being depicted as a minor penalty under the regulations. Notice was issued for appearance before the competent authority. The petitioner though in receipt of notice fails to appear before the authority. Therefore, the respondent left with no choice had to impose the said penalty. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner cannot now project that no enquiry was conducted prior to the imposition of the aforesaid penalty.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in lis stands completely answered in identical circumstances by the Co-Ordinate Bench. In terms of the order dated 12.09.2025 in Writ Petition No.104472/2014, wherein the Co-Ordinate Bench considering the entire spectrum of law has held as follows:

7. The question as to whether the respondents can impose minor penalty/punishment without conducting any enquiry or without assigning reasons as to why conducting of enquiry is being dispensed with, is no long a res integra, in the light of the following judgments of this Court:

a) In Basappa Vs. The Managing Director, NWKRTC , W.P. No.104098/2015, disposed of on 22.03.2018

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

2. The petitioner admittedly has been working as Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI) with the 2^nd respondent. He was earlier appointed as conductor and later on promotion, he became ATI. During the course of his employment with the respondent, he was issued with an article of charges dated 06.03.2012 on the allegations that he was responsible for earning lesser E.P.K.M and many of the schedules have been operated untimely. Therefore, he was responsible for causing loss to the corporation.

3. It was further alleged that, he has not distributed weekly holidays properly to the staff and he got reported the employees who remained absent for a week and he permitted them to report on 7^th day thereby rate of absence has been increased.

4. In the charge sheet, it is noted that, what are all the documents the disciplinary authority has relied upon and the witness list has also been appended to the said charge sheet. Admittedly there is no enquiry held and an order was passed as per the Annexure-C dated 23.01.2014 imposing penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. The said order is questioned before this court.

5. As could be seen from the charge sheet there are as many as three independent separate charges have been leveled against him and it is alleged that he has committed the misconduct as per Rule 3(2)(3) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Employees (C & D) Regulations, 1971.

6. The charge memo also discloses that, the disciplinary authority would like to rely upon the report of the Divisional Controll