- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 12359 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISION CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C, MYSURU RURAL DIVISION, MYSURU, NOW REPRESENTED BY, BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. V.M.AJITH S/O MANJEGOWDA V.N, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR, TOKEN NO.1144, R/AT #VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE, BAGURU HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 111. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SANGEETHA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sangeetha, counsel on behalf of Sri.Srinivasa K., for the respondent, have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The respondent was a Driver cum Conductor at the Corporation's establishment. It is said that on 13.12.2019, Sri.Ravikumar B - Traffic Inspector, KSRTC, Arasikere Depot, was discharging his duties at the Traffic Division of the said depot. At about 15:45 hours, the respondent, along with fellow employee Manjunatha P.J., came to the Depot and shouted at the Traffic Inspector, manhandled him and gave a life threat. It is said that the respondent, in a high-handed manner, to deter the Traffic Inspector, obstructed him from discharging his official duty and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and behaved in a manner unbecoming of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 a Corporation Servant. The Corporation contended that the respondent and his fellow employee were under the state of intoxication, and the Traffic Inspector had instructed the Security Guard to examine them by using a breath analyzer; however, they refused to be examined. In this regard, the Traffic Inspector and the Security Guard submitted their report to the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager, on receipt of said report, submitted a detailed report to the Disciplinary Authority for needful action in the matter. The Disciplinary Authority issued articles of charge to the respondent, and he submitted his explanation to the same. Taking note of the seriousness of the charges and the explanation offered by the respondent was not satisfactory and convincing, the disciplinary authority decided to conduct an inquiry to find out the truth in the charges leveled against the respondent and appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry strictly in accordance with the law and following the principles of natural justice. The respondent actively participated in the inquiry. Based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the inquiry officer - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer, but he did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority, taking note of the material on record, passed an order of punishment on 15.04.2021 and dismissed the respondent from service. The respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Chikkamagaluru, in I.D.A.No.11/2021. The Labour Court vide order dated 11.05.2022 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide award dated 10.08.2022 set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, full backwages and all other consequential benefits. The order passed on the domestic inquiry and the award are 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V/S. GAJADHAR NATH - AIR 2022 SC 139. (2) MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD V/S. JAGDISH CHANDRA SHARMA - AIR 2005 SC 1924. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether the Labour Court justified in concluding that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper? 2. Whether the award passed by the Labour Court requires interference? 5. Suffice it to note that the order on the preliminary issue was made on 11.05.2022. The Labour Court, taking note of the material evidence on record, concludes that the evidence of the witnesses was recorded within a short span of time and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 arguments were not heard before preparing the inquiry report. The Labour Court also holds that without hearing arguments, the passing of the order amounts to a denial of opportunity. The reasoning on the preliminary issue is untenable. The reason is apparent. The incident occurred on 13.12.2019; the Depot Manager submitted a report on 15.12.2019; the articles of charge was issued on 14.01.2020; the inquiry officer was appointed on 11.03.2020; the inquiry proceedings were conducted and evidence and statements were recorded on 10.11.2020, 24.11.2020, 12.01.2021, 22.01.2021, 29.01.2021 and 08.02.2021; the inquiry officer submitted his findings on 10.03.2021; the second show cause notice was issued on 17.03.2021; the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment on 15.04.2021. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the inquiry proceedings were conducted for more than a year. Furthermore, the inquiry was conducted by following the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court has failed to appreciate that all reasonable opportunity was accorded to the respondent to defend himself against the charges leveled against him, even to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 take the assistance of a co-worker. It is pivotal to note that after recording the statement of the respondent and the management witness, the respondent has cross-examined the management witness. After submission of findings by the inquiry officer, a second show cause notice was issued to the respondent, and he did not submit his reply to the same. It is to be noted that the respondent has not led any evidence before the Labour Court with regard to the issue of the fairness of the domestic inquiry. As such, the order passed on the domestic inquiry is untenable. The Labour Court has failed to pass a suitable order on the domestic inquiry. Hence, the order passed on the domestic inquiry is liable to be set aside, and so it is set aside. 6. Next, let me consider the merits of the case. Suffice it to note that on 13.12.2019 at about 15:45 hours, the respondent, along with his fellow employee, came to the Arasikere Depot and started questioning his higher official about his absenteeism in the attendance register. It is pivotal to note that the higher official gave a suitable reply. However, the respondent manhandled his higher official and gave a life - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 threat. He acted in a high-handed manner to deter his higher official from discharging his official duties. It is not in dispute that the respondent visited the Depot on 13.12.2019 and had a conversation about his absenteeism with his higher official. The charge leveled against the respondent was serious in nature, i.e., misbehaving, manhandling and giving a life threat to his higher official, who was discharging his duties. The respondent admits that he was present in the Depot on 13.12.2019. He contended that he had visited the Depot to apply for leave. However, he has failed to substantiate the same. Even in the cross-examination, he has failed to elicit anything from the Management witness about the charges. The Corporation contends that the respondent and his fellow employee Manjunath were under the state of intoxication and refused for breath analyzer test. In this background, what was required to be considered by the Labour Court was the action on the part of the respondent, i.e., posing questions to his higher officials and misbehaving, manhandling and giving a life threat to the higher official. When the respondent himself admits that he was present in the depot and had a conversation - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 with the higher official on that particular date, the Labour Court has erred in concluding that the respondent did not do anything on that particular day in the Depot. In my view, the Labour Court has failed to visualize the entire situation from the right perspective. Furthermore, the Labour Court has erred in concluding that the Corporation has failed to substantiate that the respondent and his fellow workman were in a state of intoxication. As already noted above, the respondent and his fellow workman refused to cooperate with the breath analyzer test. Therefore, the Labour Court could not have viewed the action on the part of the respondent so lightly. 7. The charges leveled against the respondent were very serious in nature. However, the Labour Court viewed it as a small incident and concluded that the small incident had been blown out of proportion, and major punishment was imposed. The Labor Court has totally lost sight of the issue involved in the matter, particularly about the seriousness of the charges leveled against the respondent and erroneously concludes that there is no evidence that such an incident happened on 13.12.2019. In my view, the Labor Court ought to have - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 appreciated the charges in the right perspective. The respondent is a Public Transport Employee and should maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. It is relevant to note that junior officials should address their superiors with a respectful and appropriate tone. It is improper for a junior official to use a high tone when speaking with higher-ranking official. A junior official must maintain a respectful and deferential tone when communicating with a superior, and speaking to a superior in a high tone is considered inappropriate conduct for a junior official. To conclude, I can say only this much that this is a curious case of a public transport employee who exhibited unethical behavior. Hence, such an employee does not deserve any sympathy, much less misplaced sympathy. For the reasons stated above, the order passed on domestic inquiry and the award of the Labour Court are liable to be set aside, and so, they are set aside. 8. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Labour Court on Preliminary Issue and the award dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Labour Court, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45974 WP No. 12359 of 2023 Chikkamagaluru in I.D.A.No.11/2021 vide Annexures-A and B are quashed. The order of dismissal dated 15.04.2021 is confirmed. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the confirmation of the order of dismissal, the interim order granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE TKN,MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27