- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4178 WP No. 22353 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 22353 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI N NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, HONNASHETTIHALLI AT SRINIVASPURA POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SRINIVAS B S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B L SANJEEV, 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 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE IN REF.NO.53/2005. QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DT.3.1.2012 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE IN REF.NO.53/2005 AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW 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. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4178 WP No. 22353 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the former employee of respondent Corporation assailing the award dated 03.01.2012 in Reference No.53/2005 on the file of Industrial Tribunal at Mysore. 2. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute assailing 3 penalties imposed by the respondent Corporation pursuant to 3 different disciplinary enquires. The reference is rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The petitioner was working as a Conductor and 3 disciplinary enquiries were initiated for not issuing the tickets to the passengers on 3 different occasions. The parties participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer found that the charges are proved and the disciplinary authority after the second show cause notice, considering the reply has imposed the penalty. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4178 WP No. 22353 of 2013 4. In one of the disciplinary enquires, the basic pay is reduced by 3 increments permanently and in another proceeding, the basic pay is reduced by 2 increments permanently and in the 3rd enquiry, the basic pay is reduced by 6 increments permanently. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/employee contends that the penalty imposed is impermissible under the Regulation 18A(iii) of the Regulations, 1971. The said Regulation reads as under:- "18. Nature of Penalties: - Any one or more of the followings penalties, may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Corporation servant, namely: A. Minor penalties:- (i) xxxx (ii) xxxx; (iii) With-holding of increments of wages or pay;" 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation would submit that the penalty imposed is in compliance with Regulation 18A(iii) of the Karnataka State Road - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4178 WP No. 22353 of 2013 Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'Regulations, 1971'). 7. As can be seen from Regulation 18A(iii), the disciplinary authority is competent to impose penalty of withholding of the increment or wages or pay. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the penalty imposed against the petitioner does not fit in any of the penalties enumerated in the Regulation referred to above. 9. This Court has perused the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. As can be seen from the penalty imposed, the disciplinary authority has withheld the annual increments permanently. Though the word 'permanent' is not found in the Regulation, the final outcome of the penalty imposed is nothing but withholding increments. 10. Under these circumstances, the penalty imposed cannot be construed or interpreted as not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4178 WP No. 22353 of 2013 permitted under the Regulations. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the petition. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0