IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 19820 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALUR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

RAMANNA BIRUNAGI ADULT, DRIVER REPRESENTED BY THE Digi tally GENERAL SECRETARY signed by KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION PRAMILA G V CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION Location:

CHIKKAMAGALUR HIGH COURT …RESPONDENT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD. 5.12.2015 IN REF NO. 172/2012 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE (ANNX-J).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

2. This petition is filed assailing the award dated

05.12.2015 passed in Reference No.172/2012 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru and in terms of the said award, reference was allowed and the penalty/punishment vide order dated 31.07.2007 imposed by the petitioner- Corporation on the respondent-employee is set aside. Further, the petitioner - Corporation was directed to confer all the benefits which was withheld by the petitioner -

Corporation in terms of the order dated 31.07.2007. 3. In terms of the order dated 31.07.2007, the petitioner-Corporation had imposed the punishment by reducing the pay scale to that of minimum pay scale of the driver for 10 years and also to deduct one month's salary towards repair. It is relevant to note that the respondent was appointed as driver-cum-conductor.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking through the facts of the case, would urge that, accident occurred when the respondent was driving the bus on 14.10.2004. The bus fell to a trench and as a result, 27 passengers were injured and the bus was extensively damaged.

5. The Disciplinary Enquiry was initiated against the respondent. The respondent did not plead guilty and he took a defence that, a vehicle was coming from opposite direction, and to give way to the said vehicle, he took the vehicle to the left side, thereafter while trying to turn the vehicle to the right, the steering jammed and the brakes failed. As a result, the bus fell to the trench. 6. Before the Disciplinary Enquiry, his defence was that, when he tried to take the vehicle to the left, the steering jammed, the brake failed and vehicle fell to the trench and it is his further statement that, at the time of accident, the vehicle was moving in a down gradient and when he applied the brakes, on account of brake failure, the bus fell into a trench.

7. Referring to three inconsistent defences raised by the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the Tribunal committed an error in setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the Employer, wherein it is very much evident that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent.

8. It is also urged that, there was no other vehicle involved in the accident and accident occurred solely on account of negligent act on the part of the driver who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner.

9. In support of the contention that the defence raised by the respondent is unsustainable, attention of the Court is invited to the Motor Vehicles Accident Report, dated 16.10.2004 at Annexure-C, which clearly indicated that there were no mechanical defects in the bus which was involved in the accident.

10. Elaborating the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that, the Tribunal referred to the judgment of the JMFC, wherein the accused is acquitted of the charges as the witnesses turned hostile. It is the contention that the said judgmen