Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 42874 (KAR)

M.K.THYAGARAJU, v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

WP/32010/2025 · 2025-10-28

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42780 WP No. 32010 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 32010 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: M.K.THYAGARAJU, S/O V.KEMPAIAH, DRIVER AND CONDUCTOR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, DEPOT-09, NORTH-WEST ZONE, BMTC BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALARAJ M. V., ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BMTC NORTH-WEST ZONE, BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGARA, KH ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENT 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, 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:42780 WP No. 32010 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Sri.Balaraj.M.V., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. 2. Though the matter is listed today for preliminary hearing, it is heard. 3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: 1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the dismissal order dated:05.06.2025 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-A. 2. To pass order of quash the disputed compliant dated:18.03.2023 vide Annexure-H. 3. To pass order of quash the subsequent compliant dated:14.09.2023 vide Annexure-J. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. Suffice it to note that the petitioner being a Driver- cum-Conductor of the Corporation, came under a disciplinary - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42780 WP No. 32010 of 2025 inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service on 05.06.2025. It is pivotal to note that as against the order of dismissal, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The petitioner may take recourse under the law seeking appropriate relief before the appropriate forum subject to the law’s permission, if so advised. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7