- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 104472 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN: APPASAHEB, S/O. RAMAPPA TELI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS ASSISTANT TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT, NWKRTC, JAMAKHANDI DEPOT, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BAGALKOT DIVISION, AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BAGALKOT. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT S.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 27.07.2011 IN NO.VAKARASA/ BHAVI/SHISTU/1687/10/3585/11 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, ORDER DATED 27.06.2011 IN NO.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/2613/ 10/3053/11 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 IN NO.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/1688/10/6961/10 VIDE ANNEXURE-J, ALL ORDERS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF PETITIONER FOR FUTURE PROMOTION AND ALLOT APPROPRIATE SENIORITY NUMBER IN THE SENIORITY LIST AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) The Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order or direction quashing the impugned orders dated 27/7/2011 in No.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/1687/10/3585/11 Vide Annexure-C, order dated 27/6/2011 in No.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/2613/10/3053/11 Vide Annexure-F and order dated 31/12/2010 in No.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/1688/10/6961/10 Vide Annexure-J, all orders passed by Respondent No.1 and b) Consequent upon quashing the impugned orders, issue necessary direction to the Respondent to consider the case of petitioner for future promotion and allot appropriate seniority number in the seniority list. c) Issue any other appropriate Writ or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including as to the cost of this Writ Petition in the ends of Justice and Equity.” 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, on 01.01.1994, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) as a Conductor. On 13.09.1997, the petitioner, as an in-service candidate, applied to the post of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 Assistant Traffic Inspector and was appointed as Assistant Traffic Inspector. Subsequently, on 11.06.2005, the petitioner was promoted as Traffic Inspector and from December 2012, the petitioner started working as Assistant Traffic Superintendent. 3. On 21.10.2010, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet alleging that he was responsible for cancellation of routes. It is contended that the petitioner submitted his reply dated 01.11.2011 denying the charges. The respondents without conducting any enquiry imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year vide order dated 27.07.2011. Subsequently, on 29.04.11, the respondents issued one more charge sheet against the petitioner alleging insubordination to the orders of the higher officials and failure on his part to keep one spare driver at the Bus Depot on 05.50.2011, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations and explaining the real facts. However, respondent once again proceeded to impose minor punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year vide order dated 27.06.2011, also without conducting any enquiry. Similarly, on 21.10.2010, one more charge sheet had been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 issued by the respondent against the petitioner inter alia alleging that he had failed to prepare a duty chart/rotation and did not sent the same to the concerned Divisional Controller. Though the petitioner submitted a reply dated 02.11.2010 denying the allegations, the respondent, once again, did not conduct any enquiry and imposed minor punishment of postponement of one increment for a period of one year vide order dated 31.12.2010. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 27.07.2011, 27.06.2011 and 31.12.2010 passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the provisions contained in Regulation 22 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Employees (C & D Regulations), 1971 (for short, ‘the Regulations), it was incumbent upon the respondents either to conduct enquiry or to assign reasons as to why they are dispensing with conducting of enquiry before proceeding to impose minor penalty/punishment against the petitioner. In this context it was submitted that, in the absence of either conducting enquiry or assigning any reason as to why conducting of enquiry was being dispensed with, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 impugned orders dated 27.07.2011, 27.06.2011 and 31.12.2010 passed by respondent No.1 imposing minor penalty/punishment are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and law, in particular Rule 22 of the Regulations and the same deserve to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that, apart from the fact that there is a delay of three years in approaching this Court, the respondents are entitled to invoke Rule 22 of the Regulations and impose minor penalty even without holding enquiry and as such, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. The question as to whether the respondents can impose minor penalty/punishment without conducting any enquiry or without assigning reasons as to why conducting of enquiry is being dispensed with, is no long a res integra, in the light of the following judgments of this Court: a) In Basappa Vs. The Managing Director, NWKRTC1, 1 W.P. No.104098/2015, disposed of on 22.03.2018 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 2. The petitioner admittedly has been working as Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI) with the 2nd respondent. He was earlier appointed as conductor and later on promotion, he became ATI. During the course of his employment with the respondent, he was issued with an article of charges dated 06.03.2012 on the allegations that he was responsible for earning lesser E.P.K.M and many of the schedules have been operated untimely. Therefore, he was responsible for causing loss to the corporation. 3. It was further alleged that, he has not distributed weekly holidays properly to the staff and he got reported the employees who remained absent for a week and he permitted them to report on 7th day thereby rate of absence has been increased. 4. In the charge sheet, it is noted that, what are all the documents the disciplinary authority has relied upon and the witness list has also been appended to the said charge sheet. Admittedly there is no enquiry held and an order was passed as per the Annexure-C dated 23.01.2014 imposing penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. The said order is questioned before this court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 5. As could be seen from the charge sheet there are as many as three independent separate charges have been leveled against him and it is alleged that he has committed the misconduct as per Rule 3(2)(3) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Employees (C & D) Regulations, 1971. 6. The charge memo also discloses that, the disciplinary authority would like to rely upon the report of the Divisional Controller dated 26.12.2011 and also the list of witness was provided and one witness i.e., the Divisional Controller was cited as a witness. In spite of the charge framed against the petitioner, the enquiry has not been conducted. In this background before adverting to the order impugned, it is just and necessary to bear in mind, what are the procedures that should have been followed by the disciplinary authority before imposing such penalty. Regulation 22 says that :- 22. Procedure for imposing minor penalties : - (1) subject to the provisions of Sub-Regulation (26) of Regulation-23 and Regulation-15, no order imposing on a Corporation servant any of the penalties specified in clause (1) to (viii) of Regualtion-18 shall be made except after- (a) informing the Corporation servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may with to make against the proposal; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in Sub-Regulations (3) to (23) of Regulation – 23, in every case in which the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c) taking thee representation, if any, submitted by the Corporation servant under clause- (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration, and (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include – (i) a copy of the intimation to the Corporation servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) his representation, if any, (iii) the evidence produced during the inquiry, if any (iv) findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, and (v) the orders on the case together with reasons therefore. 7. Therefore, this provision imposes the responsibility on the disciplinary authority to take a decision whether enquiry is required in a particular case or not required, as per Regulation 22 (b). 8. If for any reason the authority holds that, the enquiry is not necessary then it can consider the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 representation submitted by the corporation servant under the clause (a) and proceed to pass appropriate orders. While considering the case the disciplinary authority has to take into consideration the representation of the corporation servant and record a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior and record the proceedings and also record the reasons for finding the guilt of the employee for imposing the penalty. In this background let me examine the order impugned under the writ petition, whether it complies with the above said provision. 9. In the impugned order at Annexure-C, the charges leveled against the petitioner has been reiterated and the objections filed by the employee also recorded and thereafter the factual aspects have been reiterated in the body of the order and on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any evidence contrary to the report and the documents perused by the authority, the authority came to the conclusion that the guilt has been proved. After holding that, the guilt has been proved, the authority was of the opinion the enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner was not necessary. The above said procedure being followed by the respondents is not in accordance with the Regulation No.22. Before drawing any inference with regard to the guilt of the employee and before adverting to any reasons for holding the petitioner guilty, the authority has to pass an order whether enquiry is necessary or not by giving reason why enquiry is not necessary. Here, as the disciplinary authority has already - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 given a finding of guilt, therefore it felt that the enquiry is not necessary that is not the spirit of the Regulation No.22. 10. Further added to that the authority has also stated that, the petitioner has not produced any documents or evidence in support of his objections on the other hand it has also stated that the authority has produced various documents available in the record. Whether those records relied upon by the authorities have been furnished to the petitioner and called upon for his say about those documents is also not conspicuously appearing in the order, nor it is stated that, whether those documents before relying upon them by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner was called upon at least to look into those documents and have his say. 11. Therefore, looking to the other facts and circumstances, it is virtually a unilateral decision taken by the disciplinary authority even without bringing it to the knowledge of the petitioner that the enquiry was not necessary against him and reasons for not holding the enquiry is not at all forthcoming except stating that guilt of the employee was already proved. Under the above said facts and circumstances, in my opinion the above said order is much against to the spirit of Regulation No.22 of the Regulations 1971. 12. Apart from the above, as the regulation itself says that, each and every misconduct has to be separately considered and findings have to be given and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 those findings should be supported by reasons. Here also the reasons have not been assigned to come to a definite conclusion, the reasons quoted are nothing but the allegations made against him and the objections filed by him. Except reiterating the objections and the charge sheet allegations, no separate reasons have been assigned on each count in order to draw any inference. Therefore under the above circumstances, looking from any angle the order does not stand to the judicial scrutiny, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 13. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, though a minor penalty is imposed, it would affect the service conditions of the petitioner and in fact in view of the this penalty his promotional opportunities have been withheld by the department and his juniors were promoted to the next post and he has to work under his juniors for the present. Whenever the service conditions of the employees are affected, the disciplinary authority has to take utmost care in passing the orders imposing the penalty upon them, because, without holding an enquiry, if department passes an order it virtually passing the order exparte considering only the pleadings of the parties. Under the above said facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the order deserves to be quashed. Hence, the following order. ORDER 1) Petition is allowed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 Consequently the order dated 23.01.2014 in No.VaaKaRaSaa KeKa/Hu/ Shistu/26-12/79, as per Annexure-C is hereby quashed.” b) The Managing Director, NWKRTC Vs. Basappa2 “ JUDGMENT Though there is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal, we have nevertheless heard learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation on merits of the appeal. 2. The legality and correctness of order dated 22.03.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.104098 of 2015 is assailed in this appeal. The respondent was working as an Assistant Traffic Inspector with the appellant-Corporation on being promoted from the post of Conductor. During the course of his employment, he was issued with Article of Charge dated 06.03.2012 alleging that he was responsible for earning lesser Earning Per Kilo Meter (E.P.K.M.). Therefore, he had caused loss to the Corporation and there were also other allegations made against him. However, on the said Article of Charge, no inquiry was held against the respondent and instead an order dated 23.01.2014 (Annexure-C) was issued imposing penalty of withholding one increment without 2 W.A. No.100217/2018, disposed off on 27.02.2019 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 cumulative effect. The said order was questioned before this Court. Learned Single Judge has quashed the said order, as imposition of penalty is without holding an inquiry against the respondent and the same is contrary to Regulation 22 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Employees (C & D) Regulations, 1971. 3. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge, as the imposition of penalty against the respondent herein is without compliance of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no inquiry or hearing, whatsoever, was provided to the respondent before imposition of the penalty. Further, we find that there is no order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dispensing with the holding of inquiry before imposition of penalty by giving reasons thereof. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ Appeal is, hence, dismissed. Consequently, all pending applications stand dismissed.” c) In Shri. Shankar Alias Shankarappa Vs. The Divisional Controller, Disciplinary Authority, KKRTC3 3 W.P. No.104389/2023 C/w W.P. No.104392/2023 and W.P. No.104462/2023, disposed off on 27.07.2023. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 “ ORDER 1. The issue involved in these writ petitions are common and therefore with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is the employee of the respondent-Corporation. Charge sheet was issued to him regarding certain misconduct and thereafter without holding any inquiry, order of punishment imposing minor punishment was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority who had modified the order of punishment. Being not satisfied with the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority had passed an order of punishment without holding an inquiry. Even if the Disciplinary Authority decides passing minor punishment, holding of an inquiry is mandatory and the same cannot be dispensed with. He also submits that no reasons have been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for dispensing with holding of inquiry. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the division bench of this court in Writ Appeal No.100217/2018 disposed of on 27.02.2019 and also in the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.112753/2014 disposed of on 13.07.2023. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that since minor punishment was imposed on the petitioner, no inquiry has been held. He also submits that the matter could be remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for passing fresh orders in the event this Court arrives at a conclusion that an inquiry was mandatory before passing any order of punishment. 5. Undisputed facts of the case are that, on the allegation of misconduct charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by the respondents and thereafter without holding an inquiry order of punishment was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100217/2018 in almost identical circumstances has held that before imposition of any penalty against an employee, compliance of principles of natural justice is a must. In the said case, the Division Bench has also observed that even if the Disciplinary Authority decides to dispense holding of an inquiry before imposition of penalty, valid reasons are to be assigned for the same. 6. In the present case, from the perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the Disciplinary Authority has assigned no reasons for dispensing with holding of inquiry before passing the order of punishment against the petitioner. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100217/2018, this Court in Writ Petition No.112753/2014 disposed of on 13.07.2023, had quashed - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 the order of punishment and had directed the respondents to work out monetary benefits for which the petitioner would be entitled and settle the same. 7. Though the learned counsel for the respondents has made an alternative prayer to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for passing fresh orders, after complying with the requirements of law, I am not inclined to remit the matter for two reasons; firstly; though this Court has been setting aside similar orders passed by the respondent-Corporation, for the last more than 5 years, the respondent-Corporation and its Officers have continued to pass orders of punishment without holding an inquiry and secondly; the charges levelled against the petitioner is not very serious. Under the circumstances, placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100217/2018 disposed of on 27.02.2019 and in the background of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.112753/2014 disposed of on 13.07.2022, I am of the considered view that these writ petitions are required to be allowed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Writ petitions are allowed. The order of punishment passed by the respondent No.1-Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to settle the monetary benefits which are denied to the petitioner in view of the order of punishment, at the earliest, but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 d) In Narayan Vs. The Managing Director, NWKRTC4 “ ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is working as Junior Assistant with the respondent Corporation, has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the order dated 22.07.2011 bearing No.VAKARASA/ KEKA/ HU/ SISTHU/ 45/ 11/ 899, passed by the respondent No.1, vide Annexure-D and also quashed the order dated 13.10.2012 bearing No.KARASA/ KEKA/ SHISTHU/ AP/ 604/ 1020/ 12-13, dated 13.10.2012, passed by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-F, and b) Consequent upon quashing the above orders direct the respondents to release the increments withheld pursuance to the above order and re-fix the wages of the petitioner. c) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. On the allegation of unathorised absence, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice, which was followed with the charge sheet. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the same. However, without holding any enquiry, the disciplinary authority had passed 4 W.P. No.112753 of 2014, disposed off on 13.07.2023 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 an order at Annexure-D, dated 22.07.2011 imposing the punishment of withholding one increment of the petitioner for a period of six months without cumulative effect. The said order was questioned by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, who had dismissed the appeal, vide order at Annexure-F, dated 13.10.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner without holding any enquiry. He submits that no reasons have been assigned by the disciplinary authority for dispensing with holding of enquiry against the petitioner. He submits that when the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature, in violation of the principles of natural justice, the order of punishment could not have been passed. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100217/2018, disposed off on 27.02.2019 and the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.103713/2018, disposed off on 15th September 2021. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that since the respondent – Management has passed minor punishment against the petitioner, there is no requirement to hold any enquiry. 6. The question that would arise for consideration in this writ petition has already been - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 considered by this Court in W.P. No.105448/2014. In view of the same, this writ petition is also disposed off in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.105448/2014. The order at Annexure-D dated 22.07.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 and the order dated 13.10.2012, passed by respondent No.2 are quashed. The respondent is directed to workout the monetary benefits for which the petitioner is entitled to and settle the same in his favour at the earliest but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” e) K.L.Gudennavar Vs. Managing Director, NWKRTC5 ORDER The petitioner, who is working as a Divisional Traffic Officer with the respondent-Corporation, has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.10.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority in proceedings bearing No.Ka.Ra.Sa/Ke.ka/Shistu/AP- 552/1050/2012-13 and consequentially quash the order of punishment dated 14.07.2011 passed by respondent No.2 in proceedings bearing No.Va.KA.Ra.Sa/Ke.Ka/hu/ Shistu/22/11/860 at Annexure-E and also to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to pay the amounts 5 W,P. No.103713/2018, disposed off on 15.09.2021 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 recovered due to reduction in salary along with interest at 12% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that, the petitioner was working as a Divisional Traffic Officer at Chikkodi Division of the respondent-Corporation during the period from 2010-11. While he was so working, a report dated 14.02.2011 was submitted by the General Manager (Technical) against the petitioner stating that the earning per kilometer in the said division is reduced causing loss to the Corporation. Based on such report, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that the division of Chikkodi had under performed in comparison to other divisions and thereby loss to the tune of `8,41,743/- was caused to the Corporation. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the charge sheet issued to him. However, without holding any enquiry into the allegations that were made against the petitioner, in spite of he filing a detailed reply to the same, the order dated 14.07.2011 was passed by the 2nd respondent imposing punishment of postponement of one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. As against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was partly allowed and the order of the 2nd respondent was modified withholding one annual increment for a period of six months instead of one year without cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner is before this Court. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority has not complied the requirements of Regulation 22 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short, ‘the Regulations of 1971’) and no reasoning has been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority to dispense with holding of enquiry as against the charges leveled against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has given a detailed reply to the show cause notice and therefore, the disciplinary authority ought to have held an enquiry against him. He submits that the punishment imposed on him effects his promotional prospects and that since the order impugned comes in the way of the petitioner’s future prospects, it is a continuing wrong and therefore, the delay, if any, caused in filing the writ petition shall not come in the way of this Court considering the case of the petitioner on merits. He has relied upon the orders of this Court in W.P. No.2762/2006 disposed of on 10.09.2013 and W.P. No.104098/2015 disposed of on 22.03.2018 in support of his case and accordingly prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as on this date, there is no punishment as against the petitioner and therefore, there is nothing to be considered in this writ petition. He submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a minor punishment and since, in the order of punishment itself, the Disciplinary Authority has opined that holding of - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 enquiry is not necessary, the same would comply the requirement of Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1971 and therefore, the orders impugned do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. He further submits that though the punishment order is passed in the year 2011 and the Appellate Authority’s order is of the year 2012, the petitioner has belatedly approached this Court in the year 2018 without offering any explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He accordingly prays to dismiss the petition. 5. I have carefully considered the rival arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material on record. 6. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 26.02.2011 and on receipt of such charge sheet, the petitioner gave a detailed reply to the said charge sheet on 31.03.2011. The Disciplinary Authority there afterwards, without holding any enquiry with regard to the charges leveled against the petitioner has passed an order of punishment. 7. Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1971 provides that the Disciplinary Authority is required to take a decision as to whether an enquiry is required in a particular case or not and a reasoned order is required to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority in case the Disciplinary Authority comes to a decision that holding of - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 enquiry is not required in a particular case. In the case on hand, though the Disciplinary Authority has made a note in its order that holding of enquiry is not necessary, the same would not suffice the requirement of Regulation 22(1)(b) of Regulations of 1971 as no reasons are assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for coming to a conclusion that enquiry is not necessary in the present case. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K.Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2001)9 SCC 180 has held that even in the case of imposing a minor penalty the principles of natural justice must be followed and in cases where the charges are denied by the employee an enquiry should be conducted. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 3 has observed as follows: “3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that “withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect” is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charge against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.” 9. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.2762/2006 and W.P. No.104098/2015, after referring - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 to Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1971 has held that the Disciplinary Authority is required to pass a reasoned order in the event it decides to dispense with holding of enquiry as against the delinquent employee. Under the circumstances, the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which does not satisfy the requirement of law, cannot be sustained. 10. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a contention that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, since the punishment imposed on the petitioner would come in the way of his future prospects in his career, the same is required to be considered as a continuing wrong and therefore, the delay in filing the petition cannot come in the way of this Court in interfering with the erroneous orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 22.10.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority bearing No.Ka.Ra.Sa./Ke.Ka/ Shistu/AP- 552/1050/2012-13, vide Annexure-J and also the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings bearing No.Va.Ka.Ra.Sa./ - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 Ke.Ka./Hu/Shistu/22/11/860, vide Annexure-E are quashed. iii) It is needless to state that if the respondents-Corporation have recovered any amount from the petitioner due to reduction in salary, the same shall be refunded to him as expeditiously as possible.” 8. As can be seen from the ratio in the aforesaid judgments, in the absence of either dispensing with conducting enquiry by assigning valid and cogent reasons or without conducting necessary enquiry, it was impermissible on the part of the respondents to impose minor penalty/punishment against the petitioner and consequently, the impugned orders passed by the respondents deserve to be quashed. 9. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that there was a delay of three years in approaching this Court, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was aged only about 40 years at the time of filing this petition and was around 30 to 35 years when the minor penalty/punishment was imposed and was not suspended from service but continued to serve under the respondents, it cannot be said that the delay of three years in approaching this Court is fatal to the claim of the - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11977 WP No. 104472 of 2014 petitioner and as such, this contention urged by the respondents cannot be accepted. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned orders dated 27.07.2011, 27.06.2011 and 31.12.2010, Annexures-‘C’, ‘F’, and ‘J’ respectively, passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5