- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1275 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. BASHA P S/O PAKIRSABI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O PERESANDRA VILLAGE AND POST MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 104. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPUR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER CENTRAL OFFICES K.H. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.15162/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT, WITH A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE APPELLANT AS DIRECTED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPLE DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, IN ID No.4/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-K BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2024, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15162/2023 [L-KSRTC] captioned 'The Divisional - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 Controller, KSRTC v. P. Basha: NC:2023:KHC:46497'. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [KSRTC] had filed the aforementioned Writ Petition impugning an award dated 25.03.2022 passed in I.D.No.4/2020 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, whereby the appellant's claim preferred under Section 10(4-A) r/w Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was partly allowed inasmuch as the punishment of dismissal from service as imposed on the accused was set aside. The appellant was directed to be reinstated in service albeit by withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect and all other consequential benefits. Prefatory Facts 3. The appellant was appointed as a driver-cum-conductor with the respondent on 12.03.2009. On 13.01.2009, while on duty on a bus bearing No.F-993, which was plying from Bengaluru to Gowribidanur, the officials of the respondent carried out a check at Yelahanka stage point and it was found that there were 34 + 1 (thirty-four plus one) passengers on the bus. Two passengers, who were traveling from Mekri Circle to Gowribidanur had not been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 issued tickets. The appellant had failed to collect the fair of Rs.71/- each from the said two passengers. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appellant was charged with misconduct. The Articles of Charge issued to the appellant are set out as below. "ARTICLES OF CHARGE That on 13.01.2019 while you are discharging the duties on bus bearing No.F-993 as Conductor, the checking staff checked the bus and found the following misconduct. 1) Failed to issue two tickets of two passengers traveling from Mekri Circle to Gowribidanur requisite fare of Rs.71/- each not collected from the passengers. 2) The above referred acts of misconduct you are showing irresponsible for your duty and failed to discharge the duties and responsibilities which was entrusted to you by the corporation. You had failed to maintain discipline hence C&D Regulation 1971 Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) this amounts to be misconduct." 5. The appellant contested the said charges. He stated that after issuing the tickets, he had counted the passengers and found that two passengers were in excess. He claimed that the said two passengers were wearing headphones and were busy on mobile - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 and had forgotten to obtain the tickets from him. Essentially, he blamed the two passengers for committing the mistake. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and found that the charges made against the appellant were established. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 03.07.2019 was issued to the appellant to show cause why action under Section 18(A) and (B) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, be not taken against him. The said show cause notice also listed out the appellant’s default history, which reflected that the appellant was involved in 57 (fifty-seven) cases of misconduct, which included 5 (five) serious red mark cases and 3 (three) red mark cases. Out of the aforesaid cases, 56 (fifty-six) were disposed of by imposing minor penalty. The appellant responded to the said show cause notice. After considering the same, the disciplinary authority issued a dismissal order dated 05.03.2020 [the dismissal order]. The appellant raised the dispute and filed statement of claim [ID No.04/2020: P.Basha v. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC] before the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chikaballapura. The respondent contested the same. Both the parties led their - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 evidence. The said proceedings culminated in an impugned award dated 25.03.2022. 6. The court rejected the contention of the appellant that the enquiry conducted by the respondent was not fair and proper. Additionally, the court also held that the charges of misconduct were proved. However, the Court was of the view that the punishment imposed was disproportionately excessive. Accordingly, the court reduced the punishment imposed on the appellant withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect. The appellant was reinstated in service albeit without back wages. Aggrieved by the said order dated 25.03.2020, KSRTC preferred a writ petition and the same was allowed. 7. The appellant preferred a review petition [Review Petition No.97/2024] against the impugned order, which was also dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.07.2024. Reasons and Conclusions 8. The only question to be considered is whether any interference with the disciplinary action is warranted by the court. It - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 is well settled that the courts will not intervene with the disciplinary proceedings or the punishment imposed, unless it is found that the principles of natural justice have been violated; there is no evidence at all to support the findings of misconduct; the disciplinary action is vitiated by a mala fide or bias; or the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate. 9. In the present case, the enquiry officer, after following due procedure, found that the misconduct on the part of the appellant, for which he was charged, was established. The fairness of the procedure as well as the merits of the findings were examined by the Labour Court and it was found that the procedure adopted was fair and justified and the appellant's misconduct was established. We find that there is no ground to interfere with the said findings. 10. In view of the above, the only question that is to be examined is whether the punishment imposed could be interfered with by the court. 11. In Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh : (2013) 12 SCC 372, the Supreme Court had considered the judicial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 precedents and had summarized the principles as under: “19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co- delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge- sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 12. In view of the above, the only question that is to be addressed is whether the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. At the first blush, it appears that the punishment of dismissal on account of non issue of tickets of an aggregate value of Rs.142/- is harsh. However, it is also necessary to bear in mind the past conduct to the appellant. The show cause notice dated 03.07.2019 issued to the appellant had listed out 57 (fifty- seven) instances of misconduct. One of the cases was pending, but penalties had been imposed on the appellant in the other 56 (fifty-six) cases of misconduct. Most of the said cases were of non- issuance of tickets as well. The appellant was called upon to improve his conduct but, apparently, there was no improvement. The number of cases of misconduct have spiraled to over 65 (sixty- five). Given the past conduct of the appellant, the punishment imposed cannot be considered disproportionately excessive. Clearly, the employer cannot be compelled to suffer the repeated misconduct on the part of its employee and to continue the employment of an employee, who has steadfastly failed to improve - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29469-DB WA No. 1275 of 2024 and continues to repeatedly misconduct himself. Viewed in this perspective, the punishment imposed on the appellant does not shock the conscience of this Court. 13. In the aforesaid view, no interference with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or respondent is warranted. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE sd List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34