1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI

WRIT PETITION NO.32067/2019 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K C PRASANNA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

S/O LATE K.S.CHENNAIAH,

NO 40, 2^ND CROSS,

2^ND STATE, GAYATHRIPURAM,

MYSORE – 570 001.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION,

HASSAN – 573 201.

... RESPONDENT

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 13.1.2014 PASSED BY THE

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE IN REF NO.63/2012

VIDE ANNEXURE - E TO THE W.P. UNDER THE FACTS AND

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

2

ORDER

In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought

for the following reliefs:

(a)

Call for the records on the file of the

Industrial

Tribunal

at

Mysore

in

Ref.

No.63/2012.

(b)

Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari

quashing

the

impugned

award

dated

13.01.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal

at Mysore in Ref No.63/2012 vide Annexure-E

to the writ petition under the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(c)

Issue any other appropriate writ, order or

orders or direction as this Hon’ble Court may

deems fit to grant by considering the facts and

circumstances of the case in the interest of

justice and equity.

2.

The petitioner was selected and appointed as

Conductor in the respondent-Corporation in the year

1981.

He

remained

unauthorized

absent

from

3

13.10.2007 to 16.11.2007 for which he was subjected to

the Domestic Enquiry. He submitted a detailed reply to

the article of charge dated 21.11.2007 by denying the

charges leveled against him. The Enquiring Officer held

that charges leveled against the petitioner were proved.

To that effect, the Enquiring Officer submitted a report

dated 01.07.2009. After completion of formalities in

issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, the

Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose punishment

of withholding the basic pay of the petitioner to an

extent of 1^st stage permanently, treating the suspension

period as suspension only.

3.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment

order, the petitioner has registered an industrial dispute

in Ref.No.63/2012 on the file of Industrial Tribunal,

Mysore. Industrial Tribunal has rejected the dispute

registered in Ref.No.63/2012 on 13.01.2014. Hence, the

present petition is filed.

4

4.

Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was

subjected

to

domestic

Enquiry

for

remaining

unauthorized absent from 13.10.2007 to 16.11.2007

and respondent-Corporation has imposed penalty of

withholding the basic pay of the petitioner to an extent

of 1^st stage permanently, treating the suspension period

as suspension only.

5.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

vehemently contended that on submission of detailed

reply by the petitioner, the same was not considered by

the Enquiring Officer. Therefore, in Domestic Enquiry as

well as before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner was

not given ample opportunity to adduce evidence.

6.

On perusal of the order dated 13.01.2014, it

is crystal clear that the petitioner has admitted the guilt

in writing vide Exs.M13 and M14 and same has been

taken into consideration by the Industrial Tribunal. The

5

Award of the Industrial Tribunal at paragraphs 17 and

18 reads as under:

“17. Ex.M.13 and Ex.M.14 show that on

13.05.2009,

the

First

Party

gave

Representation as per Ex.M.13 to the Enquiry

Officer admitting his guilt. The First Party has

not disputed that he admitted his guilty

during

enquiry.

However,

in

his

Claim

Statement, it is his contention that from time

to time, the Enquiry Officer forced him to

admit his guilt. But, there is nothing on

behalf of the First Pa