- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47625 WP No. 11992 of 2022 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. 11992 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, EAST DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027 BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M.KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. MUNINANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT MANDUR VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT 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 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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:47625 WP No. 11992 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. 2. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 18.04.2021. 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 was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 12.09.2014 onwards without submitting leave application or without prior permission from the higher officers. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. He was issued with call letter calling upon him to repot to duty. He was issued with articles of charge. The respondent did not reply to the same. Apart from the notices, calling upon to present to the inquiry, Paper Publication was also issued calling upon the delinquent to appear on 13.02.2015 before the Inquiry Officer. However, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47625 WP No. 11992 of 2022 respondent appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 13.02.2015 and the inquiry officer recorded the preliminary inquiry. Thereafter matter was adjourned at the request of the respondent and thereafter he remained absent. Pending inquiry the respondent submitted a representation on 29.06.2015 permitting him to join to duty. Taking consideration of his request, the Divisional Controller allowed him to join the duty pending of the inquiry. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the 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 06.01.2017 and dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the II Additional Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.39/2018. The Labor Court vide order dated:27.06.2019 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 26.02.2021 set- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47625 WP No. 11992 of 2022 aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. The Corporation was directed to withhold two annual increments with cumulative effect. 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 urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. Counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the call letters sent to the respondent and the same may be placed on record. Submission is noted. Memo along the call letters sent to the respondent is placed on record and perused the same with care. 5. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47625 WP No. 11992 of 2022 disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 12.09.2014 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. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47625 WP No. 11992 of 2022 unauthorizedly from duty without submitting a leave application or without prior permission from the higher authority. The Labor Court upheld the misconduct. However, erroneously proceeded to set aside the punishment order. This is unsustainable in law. When the act of misconduct is upheld by the Labor Court what is required to be considered is victimization. The respondent did not establish a prima facie case for victimization. Furthermore, Labor Court did not find that the dismissal was strikingly disproportionate in any manner, and erred in setting aside the order of punishment. In the present case, as already noted above the Labor Court ultimately concludes that the workman has failed to substantiate his unauthorized absence, hence, the Labor Court ought to have concluded that there is no victimization and perversity. The Apex Court, in many cases has settled the law that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, the scope of judicial review is limited. The Labor Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded the relevant matters. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47625 WP No. 11992 of 2022 Lastly, counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., submits that this Court vide order dated:18.04.2023, directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. Counsel further submits that a memo has been filed stating that, the Corporation has issued call letters to the respondent to report for duty. However, he did not report for duty as of today. Counsel, therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record. Memo is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that the Corporation has issued call letters to the respondent to report to duty. However, he did not report to duty as of today. The 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:27.06.2019 on Preliminary Issues and the award dated:26.02.2021, both passed by the II Additional Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.39/2018 vide Annexures-A and B - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47625 WP No. 11992 of 2022 are quashed. The order of punishment dated 06.01.2017 is confirmed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35