- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5443 WP No. 61828 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 61828 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580 030. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.A.KARIGANNAVAR., ADVOCATE) AND: LINGAYYA BASAYYA RUDRASWAMYMAT, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: PLOT NO.44, ADARSHNAGAR, HUDCO COLONY, GADAG. … RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 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.Manjunath.A.Karigannavar., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5443 WP No. 61828 of 2011 2. Notice to the respondent was ordered on 08.08.2011. A perusal of the office note depicts the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The short facts are these: The respondent – Sri.Lingayya Basayya Rudraswamymat was a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. On 10.04.2002, he was on duty on the bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing No.KA-25-F-1151 that was plying on the route from Gadag to Attikatta. When the bus was near Doni and Tanda curve, a bullock cart was coming from opposite direction, he took the bus to the extreme left side, and he lost control over the vehicle and fell on its left side. Due to which, the bus was damaged; sixteen passengers suffered injuries of which eleven suffered grievous injuries. The Corporation paid Ex-Gratia compensation to the passengers. It was also made liable to answer the claims for compensation before the MACT. For the act of misconduct, the respondent was issued with articles of charge. He submitted his reply. The disciplinary - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5443 WP No. 61828 of 2011 inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the defence of the respondent and imposed minor punishment on 02.02.2005 to recover a sum of Rs.12,308/- in 24 installments from his salary in addition to withholding of two increments from his basic pay permanently. Aggrieved by the order of minor punishment, the respondent raised a dispute. After the failure of conciliation proceedings, the Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in I.D.No.31/2006 for adjudication. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Tribunal vide award dated 23.02.2010, modified the order of minor punishment. This award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5443 WP No. 61828 of 2011 5. The short point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal requires interference. 6. The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct and was visited with an order of minor punishment. The charge leveled against the workman was that he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Because of the negligence, the bus suffered severe damages and sixteen passengers suffered injuries of which eleven were suffered grievous injuries. The Tribunal pardoned the misconduct and modified the order of minor punishment. This is untenable. The reason is simple. Modifying the order of minor penalty is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to modify the minor penalty. The Tribunal could not have been pressed into service the aspect of minor penalty. The Managerial decision to impose a minor penalty is absolute and the same cannot be modified by the Tribunal, unless there is a perversity and victimization. In the present case, there is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5443 WP No. 61828 of 2011 no perversity and victimization. Hence, modifying the order of minor punishment is unsustainable in law. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside and so, it is set-aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli in I.D.No.31/2006 vide Annexure-A is quashed. The order of minor punishment dated 02.02.2005 is confirmed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of confirmation of order of minor punishment, the interim order granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH,MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40