IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 1785 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

BMTC NORTH DIVISION (ZONE),

BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE,

K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA,

BENGALURU - 560 027,

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE

K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA

BENGALURU-560 027

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

by THEJAS SRI.K.G.NAGARAJ

KUMAR N S/O GURUVA BHOVI,

Location: H IGH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

COURT OF

EX-DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR

KARNATAKA

B.NO.3778, DEPT NO.40 BMTC,

R/AT C/O SOMASHEKARAPPA

HARIHARAPURA 'A',

CHALUVANAHALLI POST,

BANAVARA HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK

HASSAN DISTRICT-573112.

…RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

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, counsel for the petitioner, appeared in person.

The notice was served to the respondent; however, he has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor appeared as a party in person.

2. The petition averments are as follows:

The respondent was conducting the bus on 06.11.2011 that belonged to the corporation on route No.410/8. The same was intercepted by the checking squad. The checking officers noticed that eighteen passengers and ten pass holders were travelling in the bus, and the stage entry, though closed at the Kottigepalya stage, the respondent had not carried the entries in the waybill in respect of four sales of tickets for the denomination of Rs.5/- and in respect of the sale of four tickets for the denomination of Rs.7/-. It is stated that the respondent behaved inappropriately, forcibly taking the waybill. He refused to accept the offence memo. A detailed report was submitted, and articles of charge were issued to him. He submitted a reply. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold an inquiry and an inquiry officer was appointed. A detailed inquiry was conducted, and the respondent appeared with the assistance of a co-worker. The inquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges are proved. A show-cause notice was issued, and the respondent submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority passed a punishment order on

21.07/10-2015 and dismissed the respondent from service.

3. After a lapse of three years, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.NO.10/2018. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated 06.10.2020 set aside the order of punishment. Under these circumstances, the corporation has filed the 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 papers and the records with care.

5. The facts are sufficiently stated, and they do not require reiteration. The respondent came under disciplinary proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment. The respondent had failed to make the necessary entries in the waybill. He justified it by saying the passengers got on midway. The Labour Court condoned the misconduct, asserting that, because the employee/conductor had issued the requisite tickets and no financial loss was incurred by the corporation. The Labour Court overlooked the misconduct, determining that the issuance of tickets and the absence of a pecuniary loss to the corporation were mitigating factors. Furthermore, the Labour Court has fallen into a material error of law by placing undue reliance on punishment orders imposed on other workmen as a determinative yardstick for the present case, thereby ignoring the fundamental principle that each case of misconduct must be assessed on its own gravity and unique circumstances. I may venture t