- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14068 WP No. 104560 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 104560 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVASHANKAR HOMBARDI S/O. BASALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED DRIVER NWKRTC, ”B” BLOCK, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, PATRI BUILDING, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI – 581 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, N.W.K.R.T.C. HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI – 581 110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2020, BEARING NO.VA.KA.RA.SA/ HA.VI/SIBBANDI/ GAI. HA / C7/ 170(18)/1239, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-L, AND CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE AFORE SAID ORDER ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE ALL THE BENEFITS FOR THE PERIOD 12/10/2017 TO 7/11/2018 WITH INTEREST BY FIXING OUTER LIMIT AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.10.28 15:45:50 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14068 WP No. 104560 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer: A. “Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the order dated 29/10/2020, bearing no.VA.KA.RA.SA/ HA.VI/SIBBANDI/ GAI. HA / C7/ 170(18)/1239, issued by the respondent vide Annexure-L, and B. Consequent upon quashing the afore said order issue writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to release all the benefits for the period 12/10/2017 to 7/11/2018 with interest by fixing outer limit, AND C. Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in circumstances of the case including the cost, in the ends of justice”. 2. Heard Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Prashanth S. Hosamani, learned counsel for respondent Nos1 and 2. 3. The facts in brief germane to the case are as follows: The petitioner joins the services of the Corporation as a driver and rendered nearly 30 years of service before - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14068 WP No. 104560 of 2021 retiring, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.10.2020. During his service, the petitioner meets with an accident, which resulted in a locomotor’s disability. Owing to this disability, the petitioner repeatedly requested that he be assigned a lighter job by the Corporation. The Medical Board assessed his condition and recommended that he be placed in a lighter job. 4. The issue in the present lis does not pertain to the nature of the petitioner’s posting, whether light or otherwise. It transpires that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 06.10.2017 to 19.04.2018 owing to the aforesaid disability. On the ground that he had remained unauthorisedly absent, a charge sheet was issued against him on 19.04.2018, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 03.05.2018. 5. After conducting an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings, holding that the charge was proved. On 28.10.2020, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. However, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14068 WP No. 104560 of 2021 on the very next day, i.e., on 29.10.2020, the impugned penalty order came to be passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit his reply to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 6. Learned counsel Sri. Prashanth Hosamani, appearing for the respondent, contends that though the order was passed on 29.10.2020, it did not materially affect any of the petitioner’s service conditions except gratuity, and therefore, the timing of the order would be of no consequence. 7. This submission does not merit any acceptance, as the gratuity was withheld pursuant to a departmental enquiry, and the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass the impugned order without waiting for the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice dated 28.10.2020. Thus, the impugned order suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was denied an opportunity to respond to the enquiry report. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14068 WP No. 104560 of 2021 8. Ordinarily, the matter would have been remitted to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. However, considering that the petitioner, a disabled employee, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2020, nearly five years ago, it is appropriate to a quietus to the issue rather than remitting it back. 9. Owing to the procedural irregularities noted above, the petition deserves to be allowed. ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 29.10.2020 stands quashed. iii. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from the quashment of the order except salary/back wages. iv. Such benefits shall be released to the petitioner within twelve (12) weeks from the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14068 WP No. 104560 of 2021 date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0