- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4179 WP No. 30725 of 2015 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. 30725 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SATISHA C, S/O CHIKKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, CONDUCTOR, TOKEN NO.4153 KSRTC, ARAKALAGUD DEPOT, HASSAN DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI L SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K S R T C, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 577201. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 22.4.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE IN REF.NO.102/2011 VIDE ANN-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REFERENCE AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4179 WP No. 30725 of 2015 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the award dated 22.04.2014 before the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore in Reference No.102/2011. 2. The petitioner who is the employee of the respondent Corporation has assailed the minor penalty of withholding 5 increments with cumulative effect imposed by Disciplinary Authority of respondent/Corporation vide order dated 23.12.2002. 3. The said penalty is questioned by raising a dispute in the year 2011 i.e. after 9 years. 4. The Labour Court has noticed that the enquiry is not fair and proper and accordingly, a fresh enquiry was conducted. Both the parties were permitted to lead evidence. Thereafter, the reference Court has rejected the application. 5. It is relevant to note that the Reference Court has condoned the delay in filing the Reference. However, after considering the evidence on record, the Reference Court has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4179 WP No. 30725 of 2015 concluded that the penalty imposed by the respondent Corporation is fair and proper. 6. It is noticed from the pleadings that the disciplinary enquiry was initiated pursuant to incident said to have been taken place on 09.05.1994 wherein, the petitioner was working as Conductor in the bus plying from Periyapatna to Merkera route. It is stated that the checking staff intercepted the bus and found that the petitioner has not issued tickets to 15 passengers and thereby caused loss to the respondent/Corporation. It is further stated that petitioner had collected fares from each of the passengers and retained the tickets with him. The offence memo was issued to the petitioner. 7. To the charge memo issued, the petitioner submitted a reply denying the articles of charges. The Disciplinary Enquiry was held and after enquiry, second show cause notice was issued and considering the reply the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding 5 annual increments. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4179 WP No. 30725 of 2015 8. The petitioner assailed the said order after 9 years. The issue framed relating to the delay in seeking the reference. The Tribunal found that the delay has to be condoned as valid reasons are assigned. 9. The parties were permitted to lead evidence before the Tribunal. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the reference on the premise that the charges are established. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not established by producing credible evidence. Without there being any evidence on record to hold that the charges are proved, the Tribunal committed by rejecting the claim. Learned counsel would further contend that evidence led on his behalf are not appreciated in proper perspective. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation submits that though the Tribunal has held that the enquiry is not fair and proper, later, opportunity was given to both the parties to lead evidence and the respondent Corporation has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4179 WP No. 30725 of 2015 led evidence to substantiate the charges. It is established that the petitioner has collected fares from the passengers and has not issued tickets. A witness is examined on behalf of the Corporation in addition to the Enquiry Officer who also deposed before the Labour Court. 12. The Tribunal has considered the witness examined on behalf of the respondent/ Corporation and has noticed that nothing is elicited from the cross examination of witness to disbelieve the evidence of said witnesses. The tickets which were found in the custody of the Conductor/petitioner which were required to be issued to the passengers after punching the same were not issued to the passengers. The tickets were retained by the petitioner and same were seized and produced by the respondent/Corporation. All those tickets were unpunched. The excess money was also found in the custody of the petitioner which again establish the link between unpunched tickets. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal has concluded that the respondent has established the charges against the petitioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4179 WP No. 30725 of 2015 13. It is noticed that the petitioner has not led any acceptable evidence to substantiate his defence. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has assailed the order after 9 years. 14. On reappreciation of the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any perversity in the said order so as to interfere in the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31