IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.42037 OF 2017 (S - KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATHA N, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O NINGARAJU, EWS 616, 2ND STAGE, CITB 807, HUDCO LAYOUT, M BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-560 023. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL DTD11.11.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L TO THE W.P. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02ND JULY, 2025 AND COMING ON FOR 2 PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CAV ORDER The petitioner is assailing the order dated 11.11.2016, passed by 2nd respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service, pursuant to the domestic enquiry held by the Disciplinary Authority of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) and the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. One lady employee of the Corporation working in Chamaraj Nagar had filed a complaint on 29.11.2014 alleging sexual harassment at the workplace by the petitioner. 3. On 31.01.2015, the vigilance officer of the Corporation conducted a preliminary investigation and submitted a report. Based on the said report, Articles of 3 Charges were issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 23.06.2015. 4. The petitioner vide his reply dated 03.07.2015 responded to the Articles of Charges dated 23.06.2015, denying the charges. 5. Later, a Domestic Enquiry was held. Petitioner filed his defence statement. Witnesses were examined on behalf of both sides. The enquiry officer found that the charges against the petitioner were proved and forwarded the report to the Disciplinary Authority. 6. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a reply disputing the findings. Later, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of dismissal. 7. The petitioner’s appeal before the Appellate Authority is also dismissed. Hence, the petition is before this Court by the employee. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the charges in the Articles of Charges dated 23.06.2015 are vague and do not refer to any specific 4 incident, and without reference to any specific incident, the petitioner could not defend the vague charges, and on this ground alone, the enquiry is vitiated and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Regulations 23(3)(4) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'Regulations, 1971') urged that the statement of imputation must be specific, and the charges issued on 23.06.2015 do not conform to the requirements of the Regulations, 1971. 10. The Domestic Enquiry is also vitiated for not complying with the provisions of Regulations 23(17), (18) and 19 of Regulations 1971, and the documents relied on in the enquiry have not been furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses on behalf of the Corporation. 11. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that one of the complainants who lodged a complaint against the petitioner was not interested in 5 continuing the employment under the respondent and was looking for other avenues and wanted to avail leave to prepare herself for the examination, and the petitioner had refused to sanction leave as such, a false complaint is levelled against the petitioner. It is his submission that this aspect is not considered by the respondents, and, the respondents erroneously concluded that the petitioner is guilty of charges. Hence, sought for setting aside the impugned order. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that evidence was led to prove the charges against the petitioner. There is no ambiguity in the Articles of Charges. The petitioner has replied to the Articles of Charges and has understood the contents of the complaint and charges levelled against him. Further, the petitioner participated in the Disciplinary Enquiry and cross- examined all the witnesses on behalf of the Corporation and has also led evidence, and based on the evidence, the Disciplinary Authority has concluded that the charges are proved and the penalty imposed is proportionate to the 6 misconduct alleged, as the misconduct alleged and proved is a major misconduct. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, would also submit that many criminal cases initiated against the petitioner have ended in acquittal. Thus, he would contend that even on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was a victim of malicious prosecution. 14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 15. The gist of the charges levelled against the petitioner can be summarised as under:- (i) On 29.11.2014, one of the lady employees of the respondent/Corporation complained alleging that the petitioner used to often touch the complainant and used abusive language and the words which conveyed sexist meanings and behaved inappropriately. (ii) In 2014, on the Ganesha festival day, the petitioner sexually harassed the complainant by inappropriately touching the complainant. 7 (iii) On 25.11.2014, when the complainant was working in the TRP department, the petitioner inappropriately touched the complainant and sexually harassed her and thereby, abused his power. (iv) That the petitioner used to show obscene pictures on his cell phone to another employee who is a signatory to the complaint filed by another employee, and the petitioner had threatened the lady employee of not sanctioning the leave, as she had signed the complaint filed by another employee. (v) That the petitioner used to behave inappropriately with the lady staff and used to speak in obscene language. Despite criminal cases being initiated against the petitioner, there is no improvement in his behaviour. (vi) That the petitioner has failed to maintain the integrity of his job and violated the Regulations 3(i), (ii) & (iii) of the Regulations, 1971. 8 16. In the Domestic Enquiry, one complainant was examined, and another lady employee, who is also a signatory to the complaint filed by another lady employee, was examined. 17. In addition, the officer who has conducted the preliminary investigation is also examined. Though the charge sheet refers to 7 lady employees as witnesses, they have not been examined. 18. The petitioner has responded to the said Articles of Charges denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence on record, has concluded that the charges are proved and submitted the report. 19. The report would indicate that the enquiry officer has referred to the evidence led by the witnesses and also the defence statement. The Enquiry Officer has assigned the reasons for his conclusion. 20. The Disciplinary Authority forwarded the report to the petitioner and issued the second show cause notice. The petitioner has furnished a detailed reply. Thereafter, 9 the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal. 21. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority would also indicate that the Disciplinary Authority has applied its mind to the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Later, the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal after considering the materials on record. 22. This Court has perused the evidence placed on record. Though Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the charges are vague, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has understood the charges levelled against him and responded to the allegations. 23. Considering the contents of the complaint, it would be too much to expect minute details relating to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Two employees working under the respondent/Corporation have lodged a complaint in writing complaining sexual harassment. They have also led evidence. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is highly unlikely that incidents have occurred in a place where the petitioner's 10 cabin is located, as many people frequently visit his cabin, that itself is not a ground to disbelieve the statement deposed by the victims. 24. Though it is argued that evidence on record would indicate that the incident said to have taken place on Ganesha festival is not established and same can be gathered from the cross-examination of the witnesses, where it appears that the victim did not attend the office on the Ganesha festival day, this Court is of the view that even if the incident said to have taken place on the Ganesha festival day is not established for want of acceptable evidence, the evidence relating to other incidents would establish the other charges. 25. 25. It is also relevant to note that in a case of this nature in a Domestic Enquiry, the degree of proof required cannot be equated with the degree of proof required in a criminal case. 26. It is relevant to notice that the petitioner has raised a contention that one of the complainants wanted to frequently avail leave to prepare for examination, to 11 which the petitioner did not oblige and for this reason, the complaint was lodged against the petitioner. There are no materials to accept the said defence. 27. It is extremely difficult to believe that the complainant, who has deposed before the Domestic Enquiry, has filed a false complaint as revenge for the petitioner not sanctioning the leave which she wanted to prepare for her examination. No such leave letters or orders rejecting the application seeking leave are produced. 28. It is true that the complainant later joined service elsewhere after quitting the job in KSRTC. However, that itself is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner's defence that she wanted frequent leave in order to prepare for her examination to advance her career, and the petitioner declined such leave and that it was the motive behind the complaint. 29. This Court has perused the oral testimony of the complainant and the witnesses. As already noticed, though it may not be possible to hold that the complainant 12 did visit the office on Ganesha festival day, the charges relating to other misconduct alleged seem to have been established. The Domestic Enquiry is conducted in accordance with the procedure under the Regulations, 1971. This Court does not find any merit in the contentions raised with reference to violations of the Regulations, 1971. 30. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that all the witnesses listed by the employer are not examined, what is required to be considered is the persons examined have spoken about the incidents concerning them. Other persons cited as witnesses are not the witnesses to the incident alleged by the complainant. Thus, non examination of the said witnesses is not fatal to the case of the employer. Inference that can be drawn from the non examination of those witnesses is that the incidents concerning those witnesses or the incidents which they might have witnessed are not established and it cannot be anything more beyond that. 13 31. The evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the charges against the petitioner are proved. 32. This Court is also of the view that the inference drawn by the Enquiry Officer, which is later accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is based on evidence and that said view is indeed a plausible view. 33. Merely because one more view can also be taken based on materials available on record, which may also appear to be a plausible view, it does not constitute a ground to interfere with the view taken in the Domestic Enquiry. 34. Hence, the following:- (i) Petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS