IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 14582 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISION CONTROLLER

AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,

BMTC, EAST DIVISION,

TTMC BUILDING, 6^TH FLOOR,

WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560050,

NOW REPRESENTED BY

BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,

K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560027.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

by THEJAS

KUMAR N SRI INAYATHULLA KHAN

Location: H IGH

S/O. ISMAIL KHAN,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

CONDUCTOR, B.NO.11362,

DEPOT-39, BMTC,

R/AT BYLANARASAPURA VILLAGE,

NANDAGUDI VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK,

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,

REPRESENTED BY,

S.NARAYANA,

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

KSRTC UNION, NO.54,

1^ST FLOOR, NANJAPPA ROAD,

BEHIND VIJAYA BANK,

K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 5600027.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D.R., ADVOCATE)

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

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR DICTATING OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, counsel for the petitionerand Sri.

Anandeeswara D.R.,counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.

2. The short facts are as follows.

The respondent was a conductor in the establishment of the corporation. He remained absent unauthorizedly for the duty from 09.02.2012 onwards without prior permission/the sanction of leave. Hence, the Depot Manager issued a call notice, but the respondent did not report for duty. The Disciplinary Authority issued Articles of Charge. The respondent did not submit his explanation. The Disciplinary Authority decided to hold an inquiry. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, and the inquiry was conducted as per the KSRTC regulations. The respondent participated in the inquiry proceedings and cross-examined the management witness. In the inquiry proceedings, the respondent contended that he had been unwell and accordingly submitted a leave letter via postal service; nevertheless, he was treated as an absentee. Taking note of the material evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report that the charge of absence was proved. In the meantime, the respondent sought permission to report for duty and was permitted to report to duty. Taking note of the material on record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a minor punishment by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, treating the period of absence as not on duty, treating the period of absent break in service, not entitled to gratuity and monetary benefits.

3. After three years, the respondent raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.53/ 2016.The Tribunal held that the inquiry conducted by the corporation was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 18.12.2023 allowed the claim statement. Under these circumstances, the corporation has filed the present writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

5. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions.

1. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D. PUROSTHAM in WA

3497/2009 dated 16.08.2010.

2. NORTH-WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. S.J. FERNANDES - ILR 2001 KAR 1264.

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 09.02.2012 onwards.

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 misconduct in 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 d