IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 11992 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, EAST DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027 BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. M.KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, Digitally signed R/AT MANDUR VILLAGE, by THEJAS KUMAR N VIRGONAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

Location: HIGH …RESPONDENT COURT OF (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

2. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 18.04.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that notice to the respondent is served. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

3. The brief facts are these:

The respondent was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 12.09.2014 onwards without submitting leave application or without prior permission from the higher officers. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. He was issued with call letter calling upon him to repot to duty. He was issued with articles of charge. The respondent did not reply to the same. Apart from the notices, calling upon to present to the inquiry, Paper Publication was also issued calling upon the delinquent to appear on 13.02.2015 before the Inquiry Officer. However, the respondent appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 13.02.2015 and the inquiry officer recorded the preliminary inquiry. Thereafter matter was adjourned at the request of the respondent and thereafter he remained absent. Pending inquiry the respondent submitted a representation on 29.06.2015 permitting him to join to duty. Taking consideration of his request, the Divisional Controller allowed him to join the duty pending of the inquiry. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material on record, passed an order of punishment on 06.01.2017 and dismissed him from service.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the II Additional Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.39/2018. The Labor Court vide order dated:27.06.2019 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 26.02.2021 set-

aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. The Corporation was directed to withhold two annual increments with cumulative effect. The award passed by the Labor Court is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

Counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the call letters sent to the respondent and the same may be placed on record.

Submission is noted. Memo along the call letters sent to the respondent is placed on record and perused the same with care.

5. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference.

6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinar