- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45971 WP No. 9086 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 9086 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, BY IT'S CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANEPPANAVAR RAMESH BASETTEPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. A. BHUPATHY CONDUCTOR, K.C.NO.1271, K.G.F. DEPOT, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, K.S.R.T.C STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101. …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 ORDERS, 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:45971 WP No. 9086 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri.Aneppanavar Ramesh Basetteppa., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 07.06.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The short facts are these: The respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation in 1976. On 13.04.2011, he was discharging his duties in the bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing registration No.F-1345 that was plying on the route from K.G.F to Malur. The checking officials intercepted the bus at Sundarapalya, and it was found that the respondent had neither issued tickets nor collected the bus fare of Rs.35/- each from two passengers who were traveling from K.G.F to Pernambit. The checking squad prepared an offence memo and collected fine of Rs.700/- under penalty receipt No.014345 and submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45971 WP No. 9086 of 2021 Based on the said report, the disciplinary authority issued Articles of Charge to the respondent. The respondent submitted his reply to the same. The explanation was not satisfactory. Taking note of the material evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment on 06.06/07.2011 and reduced the basic pay by two incremental stages for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the workman raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.131/2012 for adjudication. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 07.11.2019 set aside the order of punishment. The Corporation has assailed the award in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that certified copy of evidence of MW1 along with certain documents are furnished and the same may be placed on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45971 WP No. 9086 of 2021 Submission is noted. The documents are placed on record and perused the same with utmost care. 5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference. 6. The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the workman came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct i.e., non-issue of tickets and non-collection of requisite fare and was visited with an order of punishment. The charge made against the workman was non-issue of tickets and non-collection of fare of Rs.35/- each from two passengers traveling from K.G.F to Pernambit. The workman contended that there were 52+00+00 passengers in the bus and he had issued tickets to all the passengers; at the time of checking, he came to know that two passengers were drunk and had lost their tickets, hence, he specifically contended that he has been victimized. However, he has not entered into the witness box to prove his defense. Ex.M.8 is the Way bill. A perusal of the same reflects that there were 52+00+00 passengers in the bus, however the respondent had failed to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45971 WP No. 9086 of 2021 issue tickets to two passengers. It is not in dispute that the ticketless passengers had also paid penalty under receipt No.014345 and the workman had affixed his signature on the same as is evident from certified copy of Ex.M.3 Penalty Receipt. Hence, the Tribunal could not have viewed the misconduct leniently. The conclusion of the Tribunal that no loss is caused to the Corporation as the ticketless passengers paid penalty of Rs.700/- cannot be accepted. Non-issue of tickets and non- collection of fare amounts to dereliction of duty and causes loss to the exchequer. The duty of a Conductor is to issue tickets, collect the fare and account for the same. He is paid salary for this work. In the present case, the workman had failed to discharge his duties diligently and honestly. 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 workman was involved in almost sixty-six cases in the past. The disciplinary authority took note of the material on record and rightly passed the order of minor punishment. Moreover, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45971 WP No. 9086 of 2021 the Tribunal could not have exercised power to modify the order of minor punishment. Setting aside the order of minor penalty is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to set aside the order of minor penalty. I may venture to say that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.131/2012 vide Annexure-E is quashed. The order of punishment dated 06.06/07.2011 is confirmed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted if any stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE TKN,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8