IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 9319 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NATARAJA M.,

S/O LATE R.A.MUNINANJAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

R/AT NO.277,

RAJANUKUNTE VILLAGE AND POST,

HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,

BENGALURU-560064.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. KANTHARAJA V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

B.M.T.C.,

CENTRAL DIVISION /ZONE,

Digitally signed

SHANTHINAGAR,

by THEJAS

KUMAR N BENGALURU-560027.

Location: HIGH …RESPONDENT

COURT OF (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

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.Kantharaja V., counsel for the petitioner and Smt. H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.

2. The short facts are as follows:

The petitioner was a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duty without submitting a leave application or obtaining prior permission from 07.03.2011 to 21.10.2012. The Depot Manager submitted a report, and a call notice was issued. He did not reply. The articles of charge were issued, but the petitioner failed to reply. Hence, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry, which was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer submitted a finding. The Disciplinary Authority passed a punishment order.

The petitioner was dismissed from service on 07.11.2016. As against the dismissal order, the petitioner raised a dispute in ID No.04/2018 and the Labour Court, Bengaluru held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated 16.05.2019 dismissed the Claim Petition. Hence, the award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

4. Sri.Kantharaja V., counsel in presenting his arguments, vehemently contended that the Inquiry Officer was justified in concluding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. He argued by saying that the Labour Court had erred in dismissing the claim petition. Urging other grounds, he submitted that the Writ Petition may be allowed.

5. Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel submitted that the disciplinary authority "disagreed with" or "differed from" the view of the inquiry officer. She argued by saying that the petitioner was absent unauthorizedly from duty for more than a year and seven months. She justified the dismissal of the claim petition and prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to unauthorized absence. The petitioner remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 07.03.2011 to 21.10.2012.

8. An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is required to be at work. Absence without leave is a misconduction industrial employment, warranting disciplinary punishment. No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right and remaining absent without leave will constitute a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justified disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct of absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case.

9. The petitioner contended he was unwell, but did not provide evidence regarding his specific ailment. An employee/ worker who claims illness as a reason for absence or leave generally needs to provide sufficient proof of their condition, as the burden of proof often lies with the employee in such situations. Merely stating an illness wi