- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7352 WP No. 41541 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.41541 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: FAKEERAPPA HITTALAMANI S/O THIPPANNA HITTALAMANI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT GOVINALA, SHIRAHATTI TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI L.SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., RAMANAGARA DIVISION, KIMCO BUILDING, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 038. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.3.2013 PASSED BY I ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.9/2012 AT ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 28.12.2013 PASSED BY I ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, IN I.D.NO.9/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE CLAIM STATEMENT AS PRAYED FOR. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7352 WP No. 41541 of 2015 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 award dated 28.12.2013 in I.D.No.9/2012 on the file of I Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru. 2. In terms of the said award, the Labour Court has rejected the reference and upheld the penalty of dismissal imposed by the respondent-Corporation. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Certain facts are admitted. The petitioner was working as a Conductor under the respondent-Corporation, when the alleged incident took place in the year 2009. The respondent-Corporation alleged that while the petitioner was working as a Conductor on 07.06.2009 on his way from Anekal to Kywara, the bus was intercepted by the officials and it was found that five persons were not issued tickets and fare was not collected from those five persons. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7352 WP No. 41541 of 2015 4. The charge memo was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges. The inquiry was held and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal. 5. The petitioner/workman raised the dispute before the Labour Court. He raised the contention that the inquiry was not fair and proper. The Labour Court found that the inquiry is proper and thereafter, the parties led evidence on the contentions relating to victimization. The Labour Court, thereafter, found that the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner was justified and rejected the reference. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking through the facts of the case would contend that the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer is vitiated as the mandatory requirement prescribed under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short “Regulations, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7352 WP No. 41541 of 2015 1971”) were not followed. It is urged that the Labour Court has failed to take note of defect in the inquiry, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Elaborating on his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the requirement of Clause 18 of Regulation 23 of said Regulations, 1971, is completely violated and the circumstances appearing against the petitioner were not explained by the Inquiry Officer and for this reason, he would submit that the inquiry has to be set aside and the award of the Tribunal has to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Rajanna Vs. The Management of KSRTC1. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation taking through the order sheet of the proceedings would contend that the Officer has recorded 1 W.P.NO.12639/2005 (L-KSRTC) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7352 WP No. 41541 of 2015 the reasons as to why he has chosen not to examine the petitioner/delinquent employee before him and the Labour Court on appreciation of evidence has concluded that the proceeding is fair and proper. 9. It is also her submission that the petitioner has participated in the departmental inquiry before the Inquiry Officer and also participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court and assuming that there is some procedural violation, same has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Thus, it is urged that the petition is to be dismissed and penalty of dismissal has to be upheld. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. The crux of the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is with reference to Clause 18 of Regulation 23. The said Regulation states that the Inquiring Authority, may, after the Corporation Servant closes his case, and shall, if the Corporation servant has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7352 WP No. 41541 of 2015 not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances, appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Corporation servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 12. The aforementioned clause would indicate two parts. The first part is dealing with a situation where the Corporation servant has examined himself. The second part deals with a situation where the Corporation servant has not examined himself. When the Corporation servant has examined himself, the Inquiry Officer has the discretion either to examine the Corporation servant or not to examine, because the word used is “may”. 13. As far as the second situation is concerned, that is where the Corporation servant has not examined himself, the Inquiry Officer is under an obligation to examine the servant and explain the circumstances appearing against him. This part is mandatory because of the use of the word “shall” in the said clause. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7352 WP No. 41541 of 2015 14. The use of two different words namely “may and shall” in the same provision would make it very clear that, in first situation, the Inquiry Officer has an option of examining or not examining the witness. In later situation, the Inquiry Officer is mandated to examine the Corporation servant. 15. There is no dispute over the fact that, after the closure of the evidence on behalf of the Corporation, the Corporation servant has not examined himself. Thus, second part of Clause 18 of Regulation 23 of Regulations, 1971, does apply to the facts of the case. 16. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Rajanna (stated supra) in W.P.No.12639/2005 has dealt with the scope of Clause 18 of Regulation 23 and the Court has also taken a view that in case the procedure contemplated under Clause 18 of Regulation 23 is not followed, the inquiry is vitiated. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7352 WP No. 41541 of 2015 17. The Labour Court unfortunately has not noticed the requirement under Clause 18 of Regulation 23. Since, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken a view that the procedure contemplated under Clause 18 of Regulation 23 is mandatory and same is shown to be not followed, this Court is of the view that the proceeding is vitiated. 18. Under these circumstances, the petition has to be allowed. Hence the following ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned award dated 28.12.2013 in I.D.No.9/2012 on the file of I Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru, is quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Labour Court has to afford opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their case and thereafter, has to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7352 WP No. 41541 of 2015 pass appropriate orders based on the materials available on record. (iv) It is further made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the matter. All contentions kept open. (v) The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 20.03.2025 without awaiting any further notice. (vi) Registry to send back the records immediately. (vii) Since, it is stated that the petitioner is on the verge of retirement, both the parties shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the proceeding before the Labour Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41