- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48994 WP No. 32938 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 32938 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. M.K.DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, CONDUCTOR NO.3115, REPRESENTED BY VICE PRESIDENT KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, MYSURU - 570015. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KESHAV R.AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC MYSURU RURAL DIVISION, MYSURU - 570015. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) 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:48994 WP No. 32938 of 2017 ORAL ORDER Sri. Keshav R.Agnihotri, counsel for the petitioner and Smt. H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondent, have appeared in person. 2. The award that was passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, dated 01.12.2016, in I.D. No. 144/2015 is called into question in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 3. The petition averments are as follows. The respondent was a conductor in the establishment of the corporation. He was issued with Articles of Charge alleging certain misconduct. He submitted his reply to the charge sheet. The reply was not satisfactory, and he was subjected to a domestic inquiry. The inquiry officer was appointed, and after conducting a detailed inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent submitted his reply to the findings of the inquiry officer. Taking note of the material on record, the disciplinary authority imposed an order of punishment by reducing the basic pay by one increment stage with cumulative effect. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48994 WP No. 32938 of 2017 4. The respondent challenged the order of punishment by raising a dispute, the same was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal Mysore, in Reference No. 144/2015. The Industrial Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Industrial Tribunal passed the award, holding that the charges were proved and rejected the reference. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this court. 5. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care. 6. The short point is whether the Industrial Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference. 7. This is a clear-cut case of insubordination. The petitioner is a conductor employed by the corporation's establishment. Due to some disturbances in Telangana, the bus scheduled from Mysore to Hyderabad was temporarily cancelled; therefore, the petitioner was assigned to an alternative route, i.e., Mysore to Bengaluru. The petitioner failed to follow the instructions given by his supervisor. He - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48994 WP No. 32938 of 2017 came under disciplinary proceedings for misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment, i.e., his one increment was reduced permanently. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he has been serving the corporation and has an unblemished record, and the corporation is not justified in punishing the petitioner. An attempt is made by the petitioner that the Depot Manager falsely reported that there was a failure to obey the senior’s instructions. This Court finds no merit in the petitioner's contention. The reason is apparent. The petitioner showed insubordination by refusing a direct instruction from a senior officer; his behavior constitutes a failure to follow the corporation's protocols. In my considered view, the petitioner's contention is erroneous and falls to the ground. The petitioner’s failure to follow superiors' instructions justifies the imposed punishment. In other words, as the petitioner failed to follow superiors' instructions, the punishment is proper. The Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48994 WP No. 32938 of 2017 Because of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and interim relief, if any, stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50