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. 21291 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,

NORTH DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR,

BENGALURU -560027.

HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER. BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,

K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 027.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

SRI. RAMACHANDRA RAO,

by THEJAS

KUMAR N S/O. KUMBHOJIRAO,

Location: H IGH

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA AKKAJI HALLI, BOMMALADEVIPURA POST,

KORATAGERE TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU, 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 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Praveen Kumar.B.M., counsel on behalf of Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., for the petitioner has appeared in person.

2. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 26.11.2021. 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 - Ramachandra Rao was a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 20.09.2017 till 31.10.2018 without prior permission. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. The disciplinary authority issued call letters and articles of charge to the respondent. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. 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 31.10.2018 and dismissed him from service.

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.21/2019. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 28.04.2021 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service with consequential benefits. 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 has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that a memo has been filed and the same may be placed on record.

Submission is noted. Memo is placed on record and perused the same with care.

5. The point that requires consideration is whether the award passed by the Labor Court requires interference?

6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service on 31.10.2018. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 20.09.2017 onwards. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that, no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on the health grounds.

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 discip