- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29557-DB WA No. 176 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST 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. 176 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. NEHAMATHULLA SHARIEF S/O MOHAMMED SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.195/1, 17TH CROSS 1ST MAIN NEAR GLOBAL PUBLIC SCHOOL BAPUJINAGARA, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 026. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION WEST DIVISION, BMTC K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 027 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP No. 9683/2023 DATED 17.12.2024 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29557-DB WA No. 176 of 2025 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. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9683/2023 [L-KSRTC] captioned 'Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Nehamathulla Sharief : NC:2024:KHC:52011'. The said petition was preferred by the respondent-Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [BMTC] assailing the award dated 12.05.2022 of the learned III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in Industrial Dispute No.08/2015, whereby the learned Labour Court has aside the order dated 13.01.2015 [the dismissal order] dismissing the appellant from service and has substituted the same with a penalty of `5,000/-. 2. Briefly, stated the facts relevant to address the controversy are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29557-DB WA No. 176 of 2025 2.1 The appellant was selected and appointed as temporary driver with BMTC w.e.f. 25.11.1993. To establish his eligibility for being appointed as driver, he furnished school transfer certificate purportedly, issued by the Higher Primary School, Gandhinagar, Tiptur. 2.2 On 25.03.2009, the BMTC received a report to the effect that the said school had not issued a transfer certificate on the basis of which the appellant was appointed. In view of the aforesaid report, BMTC served the Articles of Charges and instituted a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the appellant was guilty of securing the appointment by submitting a fake certificate. The enquiry report was accepted and by an order dated 13.01.2015 [the dismissal order], the BMTC dismissed the appellant from service. 2.3 Being aggrieved by the dismissal order, the appellant raised an industrial dispute. He challenged the finding that he had submitted a fake certificate and alleged that the enquiry was conducted to victimize him. He also claimed parity with other - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29557-DB WA No. 176 of 2025 drivers, who had been given lesser punishment in respect of similar charges. 2.4 The learned Labour Court passed an award dated 18.02.2016. The Labour Court accepted the appellant's claim and set aside the dismissal order dated 13.01.2015 and directed the BMTC to reinstate the appellant, albeit, without backwages but with continuity of service. 2.5 Aggrieved by the award dated 18.02.2016, the BMTC filed a writ petition before this Court [W.P.No.58583/2017]. The appellant also filed a writ petition [W.P.No.17574/2017] assailing the award dated 18.02.2016 to the extent that the learned Labour Court had declined to award backwages. 2.6 The said petitions were disposed of by an order dated 30.03.2021, whereby this Court set aside the award dated 18.02.2016 and remanded the matter to the learned Labour Court for deciding afresh. The Court, noted that the learned Labour Court had not rendered any finding on whether the appellant had presented a fake school certificate at the time of joining the service. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29557-DB WA No. 176 of 2025 2.7 Pursuant to the said order remanding the matter, the learned Labour Court, heard the matter afresh and upheld the the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The learned Labour Court observed that the said findings cannot not be interfered with as the same were based on legal evidence and materials placed before the Enquiry Officer. However, the learned Labour Court passed an award dated 12.05.2022 setting aside the dismissal order dated 13.01.2015 and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of misconduct of furnishing a fake school certificate. The appellant had crossed the age of superannuation and therefore, was not reinstated. However, the learned Labour Court directed the BMTC to extend the retirement benefits on the basis that the appellant was in service on the date he reaching the age of superannuation. 2.8 Aggrieved by the learned Labour Court's award dated 12.05.2022, the BMTC preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.9683/2023(L-KSRTC), which was allowed. 2.9 The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the said order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29557-DB WA No. 176 of 2025 3. The learned Labour Court accepted that the appellant was guilty of misconduct as he had secured his appointment with BMTC by furnishing a fake school certificate to establish his educational qualification. However, the learned Labour Court held that the punishment was discriminatory. The learned Labour Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in K.V.S.Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (2015) 12 SCC 39 and observed that the facts in the present case were similar to theose in that case. 4. The learned Single Judge faulted the award dated 12.05.2022 delivered by the learned Labour Court. The learned Single Judge found that the allegation of discrimination was not sustainable as the cases of other employees referred to by the appellant were not similar to the appellant's case. The learned Single Judge also observed that the similar yardstick could not be adopted in all cases of disciplinary matters as the misconduct varies from case to case. And, it is also relevant to examine the gravity of misconduct as well as the past conduct of the workman. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29557-DB WA No. 176 of 2025 5. This Court has in a recent decision in Writ Appeal No.1222/2024 captioned 'Sri Malurappa v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation: NC:2025:KHC:28717-DB' considered similar controversy in the context of some what similar facts. 6. The delinquent employee in the said case – just as in this case – had secured his employment by furnishing a fake certificate. In the aforesaid context, this Court had observed as under, "22. Given the nature of the allegation against the appellant, we are unable to accept that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionately excessive or one that would shock the conscience of the Court. In Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh [Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh: (2013) 12 SCC 372, the Supreme Court had summarized the law 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. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29557-DB WA No. 176 of 2025 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 charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 23. In the given facts of the case, the punishment imposed on the appellant pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the BMTC could not be interfered with on the ground that it was unduly harsh or disproportionately excessive. 24. In Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P.: (2012) 8 SCC 748, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “29.3. When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29557-DB WA No. 176 of 2025 therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.” 7. Insofar as the decision of KVS Ram (supra) is concerned, this Court noted that in that case, the Supreme Court had faulted the BMTC for an inordinate delay in continuing the enquiry proceedings. The Articles of Charge was served on 03.09.1990 and the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report on 13.03.2022. Thus, the enquiry proceedings had extended to almost twelve years. In the present case, there is no allegation that the enquiry proceedings had continued for an inordinately long period. 8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27