- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52147 WP No. 6184 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 6184 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI BABU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O SRI SHANKAR PRASAD, ATTAHALLI, BANNUR HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T., 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 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:52147 WP No. 6184 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Sri.Naik V.S., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T., counsel for respondent appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The petitioner was selected and appointed as a driver cum conductor in the establishment of the corporation. The corporation initiated disciplinary inquiry proceedings by issuing articles of charge, alleging that he had failed to issue tickets of Rs.17/- and Rs.13/- denominations and collect fare from two passengers. He denied the charges. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry, holding the petitioner guilty of charges. The disciplinary authority passed the punishment order on 30.12.2011, reducing the pay of the petitioner by one incremental stage permanently and to treat the period of suspension as ‘not spent on duty’. 3. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in ID NO. 10/2015. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the corporation was fair and proper. The Tribunal vide award dated 31.03.2018 rejected the reference. Hence, the petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52147 WP No. 6184 of 2020 has filed the writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care. 5. The issue falls within a narrow compass. The petitioner failed to issue a ticket and did not collect the proper fare from passengers, i.e., denominations of Rs.17/- and Rs.13/- from two passengers. The checking staff seized the ETM tickets. It is noted that the petitioner refused to receive the offence memo. The petitioner claimed he was moments away from issuing the fares, but the inspection took place before the stage point was reached. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's contention that he was in the process of issuing tickets, finding it unsubstantiated/unconvincing. In other words, the petitioner's claim of imminent ticket issuance was addressed and dismissed by the Tribunal. Non-issue of tickets and non-collection of fare amounts to dereliction of duty and causes loss to the exchequer. The duty - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52147 WP No. 6184 of 2020 of a Conductor is to issue tickets, collect the fare and account for the same. He is paid a salary for this work. In the present case, the workman had failed to discharge his duties diligently and honestly. 6. To conclude, I can say only this much that the tribunal acted wholly within its jurisdiction in rejecting the reference. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this court, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, and interim directions, if are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21