- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4181 WP No. 31238 of 2014 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. 31238 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI N R RAVI, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O RAMEGOWDA @ SINGE GOWDA, CONDUCTOR, BADGE NO.102C, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MALAVALLI DEPOT, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA - 571401. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT H R RENUKA, 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 THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE IN REF.63/2011. QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 29.4.2013 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE IN REF.NO.63/2011 AT ANN-F DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE INCREMENTS OF THE PETITIONER WITH ALL OTHER COSNEQUENTIAL MONITORY BENEFITS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4181 WP No. 31238 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 29.04.2013 in Reference No.63/2011 on the file of Industrial Tribunal at Mysore. In terms of the impugned award, the reference filed by the employee is rejected. The employee is before this Court assailing the said award. 2. The respondent is the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under whom the petitioner was employed earlier. Now the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. 3. The petitioner was earlier working as a Conductor under the respondent Corporation. While he was on duty, the officials of the respondent Corporation intercepted the bus and found that the petitioner had not issued the tickets after having collected fare from 7 passengers. Thereafter, the disciplinary enquiry was initiated. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and the charges were held to be proved. Second show cause notice was issued to which, the petitioner replied and disciplinary authority imposed a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4181 WP No. 31238 of 2014 penalty of postponing 3 annual increments with cumulative effect and also held that the period of suspension is held to be treated as period of suspension. 4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper. Thereafter, the parties led evidence. The Labour Court dismissed the reference holding that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is established. 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;" - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4181 WP No. 31238 of 2014 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 Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 ('the Regulations, 1971' for short). 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 of postponing increments for 3 years with cumulative effect is not permitted under the aforementioned Regulation. It is his contention that the penalty is postponed and the same is impermissible. He would also refer to the circular dated 18.08.1987 issued by the respondent Corporation clarifying the position relating to the nature of penalty that can be imposed. 9. This Court has perused the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. As can be seen from the penalty imposed, the disciplinary authority has postponed 3 annual - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4181 WP No. 31238 of 2014 increments with cumulative effect. Though the word used is postponed, what is relevant to note is the disciplinary authority has also held that ensuing 3 annual increments have to be postponed. In other words, the disciplinary authority has held that the ensuing 3 increments have to be withheld. Though the word 'withheld' is not used, the final outcome of the penalty imposed is nothing but withholding of 3 immediate increments. 10. Under these circumstances, the penalty imposed cannot be construed or interpreted as indefinite punishment incapable of implementation. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22