- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5318 WP No. 19571 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 19571 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SHIVE GOWDA, S/O HANUMANTHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O SATHENAHALLI, CHOLAGALA POST, BENDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G S NAVEEN KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DISVISION, HASSAN - 573201. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE IT AT MYSORE IN REF 12/06 QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 19.5.12 PASSED BY THE IT AT MSYORE IN REF 12/06 AT ANNEX-H AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLO THE REFERENCE BY SETTING ASIDE THE PUNISHMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT- CORPORATION BY RESTORING INCREMENTS OF THE PETITIONER WITH ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL MONITORY BENEFITS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5318 WP No. 19571 of 2013 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Petition is filed assailing the order dated 19.05.2012 in Reference No.12/2006 on the file of Industrial Tribunal at Mysore. In terms of the said award, the petitioner's claim petition is rejected. 3. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim petition, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The admitted factual position is that the petitioner was the employee of the respondent-Corporation when the petition was filed in the year 2013. Now he has attained the age of superannuation. 5 disciplinary enquiries were held in respect of certain charges framed against the petitioner. In all the disciplinary enquiry, charges against the petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5318 WP No. 19571 of 2013 were held to be proved and the disciplinary authority imposed 5 different penalties. The said orders are marked at Annexures-A to E. 5. All the aforementioned penalties are questioned by raising a dispute in Ref.No.12/2006 before the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore. The Tribunal held that the procedure followed in the 2 disciplinary enquiries are proper and in respect of 3 disciplinary enquiries, procedure is not proper. Later the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate their respective claims. Accordingly, the respondent-Corporation led both oral and documentary evidence. The respondent-Corporation has produced 90 documents in support of its claim. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner has not led any evidence. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Industrial Tribunal did not appreciate evidence in proper perspective after having held that the enquiry conducted by the respondent-Corporation is not fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5318 WP No. 19571 of 2013 evidence placed on record should have held that the charges against the petitioner were not established. He would contend that the documents produced by the respondent- Corporation were self-serving documents and they are inadmissible in evidence. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation on the other hand would contend that the initial burden cast on the respondent-Corporation was duly discharged. The respondent-Corporation has examined 4 witness to substantiate its claim. It is also contended that 90 documents have been produced on behalf of respondent- Corporation and these documents established the charges levelled against the petitioner. 8. It is further contended that the petitioner has not led any evidence to substantiate his claim and given the fact that the respondent-Corporation has led evidence to substantiate the contentions raised, the petitioner was under obligation to lead rebuttal evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of such rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal rightly - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5318 WP No. 19571 of 2013 assessed the materials placed on record and has concluded the charges against the petitioner are established. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. This Court has also perused the impugned award. On consideration of the impugned award, it is noticed that the Tribunal has taken into consideration, the evidence led on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. The Tribunal has considered Exs. M34, M71 and M87 pertaining to one of the disciplinary enquiries and has also considered Ex.M13, M52 pertaining to another disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, has concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner relating to non-issuance of ticket to certain passengers on a given date is very much established. As far as the contention relating to victimization is concerned, the Court has noticed that such a contention raised by the petitioner is not established. Since the charges are held to be proved, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5318 WP No. 19571 of 2013 Tribunal has concluded that the respondent-Corporation is justified in imposing penalty. 11. This Court on reappreciation of the evidence is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be one without any evidence. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based on the materials which are placed on record which clearly indicate that the charges against the petitioner are established. No fault can be found in the decision making process. 12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the award passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26