- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19883 WP No. 39361 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 39361 OF 2016 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: MR INAYAT BAGBAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI. IMAM SAHEB BAGWAN, WORKING AS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KEMPGOWDA BUS STATION, SUBASHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANJULA KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAIK V S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICER K.H. ROAD, SHANTINGAR BENGALURU-560 027. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, KALABURAGI-585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19883 WP No. 39361 of 2016 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS PERTAINING TO ANNEX-C AND E AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2014 PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNEX-C AND ORDER DATED 23.04.2015 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEX-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 14.02.2014 marked at Annexure-C and also the order dated 23.04.2015 marked at Annexure-E. In terms of the order marked at Annexure-C, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty withholding one annual increment for a period of 8 months without cumulative effect. The appeal is filed by the petitioner assailing the said penalty which is dismissed in terms of the order at Annexure-E. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19883 WP No. 39361 of 2016 2. The facts narrated in this petition would reveal that the petitioner was working as Divisional Controller at Raichur Division of respondent No.2 in the year 2012 and a charge memo was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has not passed orders in the disciplinary proceedings in which he was supposed to pass orders. 3. The petitioner responded to the charge memo contending that he had decided few cases and he was also assigned with some other responsibilities entrusted to him. 4. Thereafter, penalty as referred to above was imposed on the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. The appeal filed by the petitioner is also dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Regulation applicable to the petitioner and the respondents, enquiry can be dispensed with only in case the disciplinary authority finds that there is no reason to hold enquiry and there has to be speaking order based on the response submitted by the delinquent employee. Without - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19883 WP No. 39361 of 2016 passing any such order, enquiry was dispensed with and without holding any enquiry, penalty is imposed. Thus, it is urged that the entire proceeding is vitiated for not following the requirement of Regulation No.22 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'Regulations, 1971') 6. Learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation on the other hand would submit that there is no need to pass a speaking order to dispense with enquiry in case delinquent employee does not deny the charges. It is her submission that the delinquent employee has not denied charges levelled against him and charges levelled against him were that he has not passed the orders in the disciplinary enquiries pending before him and for this purpose, review meet was held in the month of March-2012 and it was brought to his notice that certain cases are still pending consideration and orders are not yet passed and he was directed to dispose of the cases on priority basis. Despite notice being issued, the delinquent employee has not disposed of the old case on priority basis and he has passed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19883 WP No. 39361 of 2016 orders in only 34 cases in the month of May-2012, 4 cases in the month of June -2012 and on noticing the fact that the delinquent employee has not complied with the direction issued in the review meet. 7. On 17.05.2012, show cause notice was issued to him and his response was not satisfactory and he has not specifically denied charges levelled against him. When statistics itself would reveal that he has not disposed of requisite number of cases, there was no need to hold that further enquiry and Regulation 22 of Regulations, 1971 does not contemplate enquiry in such a situation. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. From the reply submitted by the delinquent employee, it is noticed that delinquent employee has furnished details as to how many cases are pending when he took the charge and how many cases are filed after he took charge and how many cases are disposed of in terms of the order passed by him. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19883 WP No. 39361 of 2016 10. The delinquent employee has furnished the month wise break-up starting from September - 2011 to June - 2012. According to the delinquent employee 250 cases have been decided between September - 2011 to June - 2012. It is also noticed that among the cases which were at the stage of enquiry, 34 cases were disposed of in the month of May-2012 and 8 cases were disposed in the month of June-2012 and it is also noticed that 96 cases were at the stage of enquiry in the month of May-2012 and 70 cases were in the stage of enquiry in the month of June - 2012. It is also noticed that 8 new cases were filed in the month of May - 2012 and 28 cases were filed in the month of June - 2012. 11. It is further noticed that Regulations, 1971 does not contemplate any time frame for disposal of the cases. Even in the review meet, time frame is not fixed on the delinquent employee to dispose of the cases. However, what is required to be noticed is that the delinquent employee was called-upon to dispose of the cases on priority basis. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19883 WP No. 39361 of 2016 12. Now the question is whether the explanation provided by the delinquent employee furnishing the details of disposal of the cases and pending cases and the explanation relating to his other works assigned is good enough to dispense with the disciplinary enquiry. 13. This Court is of the view that the explanation provided by the delinquent employee cannot be construed as an admission of guilt so as to dispense with enquiry. Regulation 22 of Regulations, 1971 does contemplate speaking order before dispensing with the enquiry. 14. This Court has noticed that after receipt of reply by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has proceeded to impose penalty without conducting any enquiry. The respondent/Corporation proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner has admitted the charges. After considering the material on record, this Court finds that there is no admission as such. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19883 WP No. 39361 of 2016 15. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that penalty could not have been imposed without holding enquiry. 16. This Court is of the view that the enquiry should be held and thereafter appropriate order has to be passed based on the material to be placed by the petitioner. 17. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with the procedure applicable. 18. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/KLY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22