- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31444-DB WA No. 379 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. T DINAKARA BHAT S/O LATE B. BALAKRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A ANANTA NILAYA NEAR SDP TEMPLE DEVIPURA TALAPADI VILLAGE KINYA POST MANGALORE TALUK AND DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE - 575 001 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31444-DB WA No. 379 of 2025 THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP NO.35686/2018 DATED 11/06/2024 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay of 228 days in filing the above captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.35686/2018 (L-KSRTC) [NC: 2024:KHC:20322]. 3. The appellant had filed the said writ petition impugning an Award dated 27.09.2017 [IDA No.6/2016] passed by the learned Labour Court, dismissing the dispute raised by the appellant. The appellant had raised the said dispute regarding his dismissal from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31444-DB WA No. 379 of 2025 service of the respondent/Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, pursuant to the Disciplinary Authority accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer finding that the charges made against the appellant were proved. 4. The appellant was selected and appointed as a driver-cum- conductor by the respondent / Corporation on 28.11.2000. He was on duty on a bus [bearing Registration No.KA-57-F-0220] that was plying on route No.120-121 from Mangalore to Hyderabad on 23.09.2015. While he was on duty, the said bus was intercepted by the checking squad near Mehaboob Nagar stage point [Stage No.141] and it was found that the appellant had collected an aggregate amount of Rs.3,759/-, (Rs.1,253/- each from 3 passengers who were travelling from Mangalore to Hyderabad]. However, the appellant had not issued any valid tickets to the said passengers. He had instead issued a status report of the previous day. In view of the above, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the appellant and charges were framed to the effect that appellant had attempted to misappropriate the funds of the respondent corporation. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges leveled against the appellant, were proved. The appellant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31444-DB WA No. 379 of 2025 was thereafter dismissed from service by an order dated 29.01.2016. 5. The appellant raised a dispute before the learned Labour Court. It was the appellant's case that the enquiry was not fair and proper. He also claimed that he had issued a status report instead of a ticket, on account of malfunction. Learned Labour Court did not accept the appellant's claim and accordingly had rejected the dispute raised by the appellant. 6. The appellant preferred a writ petition challenging the decision of the learned Labour Court, which was dismissed by the impugned order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was a mechanical malfunction in the device, which had resulted in a status report being generated instead of valid tickets. He claimed that the appellant had acted in a bona fide manner. 8. We are unable to accept that any interference by this Court is warranted in the facts of the present case. There are concurrent findings regarding the misconduct on the part of the appellant. We are unable to accept that the findings are perverse or not supported - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31444-DB WA No. 379 of 2025 by sufficient material. The findings cannot be faulted for being arbitrary or unreasonable. Thus, it would be impermissible to interfere with the same. 9. We find no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 10. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16