- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47623 WP No. 21291 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 21291 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, NORTH DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU -560027. HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER. BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RAMACHANDRA RAO, S/O. KUMBHOJIRAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AKKAJI HALLI, BOMMALADEVIPURA POST, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47623 WP No. 21291 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Praveen Kumar.B.M., counsel on behalf of Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., for the petitioner has appeared in person. 2. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 26.11.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that notice to the respondent is served. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The brief facts are these: The respondent - Ramachandra Rao was a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 20.09.2017 till 31.10.2018 without prior permission. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. The disciplinary authority issued call letters and articles of charge to the respondent. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47623 WP No. 21291 of 2021 charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material on record, passed an order of punishment on 31.10.2018 and dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.21/2019. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 28.04.2021 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service with consequential benefits. The award passed by the Labor Court is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a memo has been filed and the same may be placed on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47623 WP No. 21291 of 2021 Submission is noted. Memo is placed on record and perused the same with care. 5. The point that requires consideration is whether the award passed by the Labor Court requires interference? 6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service on 31.10.2018. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 20.09.2017 onwards. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that, no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on the health grounds. An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is required to be at work. Absence without leave is a misconduct in industrial employment warranting disciplinary punishment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47623 WP No. 21291 of 2021 No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right and remaining absent without leave will constitute violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes a misconduct justified disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct of absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, the delinquent remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without submitting a leave application or without prior permission from the higher authority. The workman contended that he was unwell and hence, he could not attend the duty. The workman furnished certain medical documents for the first time before the Labour Court and the same were marked as Ex.W1 to W5. The Labour Court by placing reliance on these documents concluded that the respondent was unwell and hence, the absence cannot be treated as willful and intentional one. This is untenable. The reason is apparent. The delinquent remained absent from duty from 20.09.2017 onwards, however he has furnished the medical certificates (Exs.W1 to W5) dated 29.09.2017, 31.01.2018, 21.04.2018, 25.06.2018 and 04.12.2018. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47623 WP No. 21291 of 2021 certificates have no relevance to petitioner's absent from 20.09.2017. Moreover, the medical certificates are not accompanied with clinical prescriptions. It is not in dispute that the respondent was notified of the inquiry proceedings by issuing notices, despite service of notices, he did not appear. Nothing prevented the delinquent to appear before the inquiry officer and furnish the medical documents. The Labour Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter. Needless to observe that taking note of the past conduct is a mandate requirement as per Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. In the present case, the delinquent was involved in seven cases in the past. The disciplinary authority took note of the material on record and rightly passed the order of punishment. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. The Labour Court could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism lightly. Lastly, counsel for the Corporation submits that a memo has been filed stating that this Court vide order dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47623 WP No. 21291 of 2021 23.05.2022, directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. Counsel further submits that subsequent to the reinstatement, the respondent did not report for duty. Counsel, therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record. The submission with regard to memo is noted and the memo is placed on record. Despite the call letters, the respondent has not report to duty. The past and present conduct of the respondent would reveal that he is not interested in discharging his duties diligently. Such an employee does not require any sympathy much less a misplaced sympathy. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 28.04.2021 passed by Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.21/2019 vide Annexure-C is quashed. The order of dismissal dated 31.10.2018 is confirmed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47623 WP No. 21291 of 2021 Because of confirmation of order of dismissal, the interim order granted, if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32