- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5319 WP No. 48580 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. 48580 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. H.B. HULLUR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE BANDAPPA, NO.1380, 5TH CROSS 6TH MAIN, SHARADHADEVINAGAR, MYSORE-570001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G S XLAVEEN KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI. S B MUKKANNAPPA .,ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC., MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, MYSORE-570001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE IN REF. NO.26/2009.QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE IN REF.NO.26/2009 DT.16.5.2012 AT ANNX-F TO THE WRIT PETITION.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE INCREMENTS OF THE PETITIONER AND EXTEND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL MONITORY BENEFITS AND AS WELL AS THE DIFFERENCE OF THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 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:5319 WP No. 48580 of 2013 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. The petitioner is a assailing the award dated 16.05.2012 in Reference No.26 of 2009 on the file of Industrial Tribunal at Mysuru. In terms of the said award, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is rejected. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner who filed the present petition has retired from the service by the time Writ Petition was filed. Earlier to retirement, he was working as a conductor in the respondent-Corporation. The disciplinary enquiry was held against the petitioner on the charges of not issuing ticket and not collecting fare from 8 passengers while travelling from Kittoor to Hosur on 03.02.2003. The Articles of Charges were issued on 05.02.2003. The petitioner denied the charges. Thereafter, the enquiry was held. The Disciplinary Authority issued 2nd show cause notice. The petitioner replied to the 2nd show cause notice, then the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of reducing the basic pay by three stages. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5319 WP No. 48580 of 2013 4. Aggrieved by the said penalty, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The Tribunal found that the enquiry is not fair. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation led evidence. The petitioner also led his evidence. On appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal has concluded that the penalty imposed is fair and proper and accordingly the claim is rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that once the Tribunal has taken a view that the enquiry was not fair and proper, the burden lies on the respondent-Corporation to establish the charges. It is his contention that no eye-witness is examined to substantiate the contention and the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent-Corporation are the Enquiry Officer and the custodian of the documents and not the person who claims to have intercepted the bus on a given date. Thus, he would contend that in the absence of evidence or eye-witness, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is unsustainable and it is his - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5319 WP No. 48580 of 2013 contention that the Labour Court has not properly appreciated this particular aspect which resulted in miscarriage of justice. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation on the other hand would contend that the dispute is raised after 4 years from the date of penalty. Because of this reason, the person who had intercepted the bus was not available to lead evidence. Nevertheless, the misconduct alleged is borne out by the records. The petitioner himself has signed the offence memo and evidence is produced to show that the passengers were travelling without ticket had paid penalty and these circumstances would clearly establish that the passengers were travelling without ticket and they had not paid the fare. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute that the dispute was raised 4 years after the penalty was imposed by the respondent- Corporation. In cross-examination, when question is put to the petitioner suggesting that he had signed the Memo imposing penalty, the petitioner has answered stating that his signature - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5319 WP No. 48580 of 2013 is taken by force. It is also relevant to note that the defence that the signature is taken by force is raised for the first time in the cross-examination when the evidence was recorded before the Tribunal. As already noticed, the dispute itself is raised 4 years after the penalty was imposed on the petitioner. 10. It is also relevant to note that though respondent- Corporation has not led the evidence of the Inspector who has intercepted the bus, the misconduct alleged is borne out from the record more particularly the memo of penalty which bears the signature of the petitioner as well as the passengers who have paid the penalty. The fact that penalty is imposed on the passengers is not seriously disputed by the petitioner. Going by the defence of the petitioner, the defence appears to be that the interception took place at a different place than what is mentioned in the charge memo. Said defence is a weak defence and same is not established. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal is justified in holding that the penalty imposed is proper. This award cannot be said to be an award without any evidence. There are evidence to hold that the alleged - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5319 WP No. 48580 of 2013 incident has taken place and the Tribunal has placed reliance on the said evidence to come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. 12. On appreciation of the material evidence and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any merit in the petition to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP