- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50393 WP No. 3064 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 3064 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M.NARAYANAPPA CONDUCTOR C/O GENERAL SECRETARY, AITUC, CENTRAL OFFICE, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. …RESPONDENT (REPRESENTED SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50393 WP No. 3064 of 2014 ORAL ORDER Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, T., counsel for the petitioner, appeared in person. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent received the court notice. However, he has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in- person. 2. The petition averments are as follows: The respondent was working in the Corporation establishment as a conductor. On the 29th day of December 2004, he was conducting the bus that belonged to the Corporation. The checking staff intercepted the bus, and it was noticed that the respondent had received Rs.2/- from a passenger and re-issued ticket No.430356 for Rs.6/- once it was sold at Ejipura. Further, he re-issued the tickets for Rs.4/- each to four passengers traveling from Town Hall to Majestic bearing No.416985, 986, 988 and 992 after collecting fare of Rs.4/- from each of them. It was further noticed that he had neither issued tickets nor collected fare from a group of three passengers traveling from Town Hall to Kempegowda Bus- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50393 WP No. 3064 of 2014 stand for Rs.4/- each. The checking staff submitted a report, recorded the statement of passengers, collected the penalty from the ticketless passengers. The respondent refused to sign the statement of the passengers of re-issued tickets. He endorsed the penalty receipt imposed to the ticketless passengers. The checking staff made necessary remarks in the way bill and submitted a detailed report and confiscated the unpunched tickets. 3. The Articles of Charge were issued. The respondent submitted a reply. The explanation was not satisfactory. It was decided to hold an inquiry and an inquiry officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry. 4. The inquiry notices were issued calling upon him to participate in the inquiry proceedings through a co-worker and submitted a written defence. The inquiry officer submitted a finding holding that the charge is proved. Based on the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued and taking note of the material evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order on 31.05.2006 and imposed a minor punishment withholding two increments with cumulative effect. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50393 WP No. 3064 of 2014 5. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. The Tribunal held that the misconduct had been proved. The respondent filed a writ petition, and the petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded to be considered afresh. After remand, the Tribunal set aside the punishment order. The Corporation has challenged the award on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care. 7. The key consideration is, whether the Tribunal’s decision to condone the act of pilferage was just and proper? 8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. This is a notable example of pilferage activity by an employee of an esteemed corporation. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of minor punishment. The Tribunal, in the exercise of its discretionary powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, took a lenient view of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50393 WP No. 3064 of 2014 proven misconduct of pilferage and opted for setting aside the minor punishment. This is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal was legally constrained from condoning the misconduct of pilferage, as such, an act falls outside the permissible bounds of its discretionary authority. 9. It is well-settled law that in cases of gross misconduct like pilferage, the Tribunal cannot substitute a different view in respect of a penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority unless it is found to be shockingly disproportionate. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to mitigate the penalty for a proven charge of pilferage, as the gravity of the misconduct warranted termination. The Tribunal could not have mitigated the penalty for the established misconduct of pilferage by exercising its statutory discretion. The exercise of discretionary power by the Tribunal in condoning a proven case of pilferage is irrational and perverse. Therefore, I would not hesitate to set aside the award. 10. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 02.07.2013 in I.D.No.251/2007 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50393 WP No. 3064 of 2014 is quashed. The punishment order dated 31.05.2006 is confirmed. 11. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and interim relief, if any, stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29