- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41412 WP No. 2249 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 2249 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: DHANAJAYAMURTHY, S/O. REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT H.MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE AND HALKURKE POST, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.V.R.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. C.DEEPA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER B.M.T.C. NORTH DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41412 WP No. 2249 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri.C.V.R.Swamy., counsel on behalf of Smt.C.Deepa., for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The petitioner was a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. He was issued with an articles of charge alleging that he remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 05.08.2015 till the date of issuance of articles of charge. It is stated that a charge sheet was issued on 16.12.2015 under Regulation 22 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. Thereafter, on 13.02.2016, the charge sheet was converted as one under Regulation 23 and the petitioner was notified about his absence. It is stated that on 16.05.2016, the petitioner submitted a duty report and the Corporation permitted him to report to duty and thereafter, he participated in the Inquiry Proceedings. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material evidence - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41412 WP No. 2249 of 2021 on record and the past history of the petitioner, imposed an order of punishment on 30.10.2017 and dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to the III Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D No.60/2017 for adjudication. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labor Court vide award dated 08.08.2018 dismissed the reference. This award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The short point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 5. The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the petitioner came - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41412 WP No. 2249 of 2021 under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the petitioner was that he remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 05.08.2015 till the date of issuance of articles of charge. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that, no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted that should be accompanied by Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on the health grounds. Before the Labor Court, the petitioner attempted to contend that due to ill-health he was unable to report to duty and was taking treatment. Hence, he could not attend the duty. Before this Court also he has adhered to the said contention. The petitioner also contended that he had submitted leave applications to the Corporation from time to time for extension of leave and the notarized copies of the same were furnished before the Labor Court and also furnished Medicine Receipt before the Labor Court marked as Exs.W1 to W11. The contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41412 WP No. 2249 of 2021 nothing on record to show that the petitioner submitted leave applications before the inquiry officer or to the disciplinary authority. Needless to say, if at all the petitioner had submitted leave applications, nothing prevented him from furnishing the same before the inquiry proceedings. This has not been done so. An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is required to be at work. Absence without leave is misconduct in industrial employment warranting disciplinary punishment. No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right and remaining absent without leave will constitute a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes a misconduct justified disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct or absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case. The law is settled that the disciplinary authority while taking into consideration the findings of the inquiry officer and passing the order of penalty, is required to look into past - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41412 WP No. 2249 of 2021 conduct of the workman. Needless, to observe that Regulation 25 of KSRTC (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations also mandates to refer to the past conduct and history sheet of the workman. In the present case, the petitioner was involved in six unauthorized absence cases. The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly dismissed the claim petition. I find no grounds to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24