- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025: KHC:48912 WP No. 14672 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. 14672 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISION CONTROLLER BMTC, NORTH DIVISION BENGALURU, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560022, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. DARAGYA NAIK, S/O. SOURYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR, TOKEN NO.11824, R/AT HORABAMARALLI TANDA, B.BEERENHALLI POST, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025: KHC:48912 WP No. 14672 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, T., counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person. The respondent is served and represented by counsel, Sri.Shankarappa. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. 2. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 19.11.2025; on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, for the appearance of counsel for the respondent, the petition was ordered to be listed on the 26th day of November, 2025, and it was also made clear that if no none appears on behalf of the respondent, the Court will proceed to pass orders on the merits of the case. 3. The petition is listed today. As already noted above, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025: KHC:48912 WP No. 14672 of 2017 4. The petition averments are as follows: The respondent was working in the establishment of the corporation as a trainee, driver cum conductor. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 12.05.2014 onwards till 12.09.2014 without applying for leave or without prior permission from the higher authorities. He caused inconvenience and hardship to the corporation. The Traffic Inspector, taking note of the unauthorized absence, submitted a report to the Depot Manager. The Depot Manager reported the same to the Divisional Controller. Despite the call notice, the respondent remained absent. Having no option, the disciplinary authority proceeded to hold an inquiry and appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry notices were issued calling upon him to participate in the inquiry proceedings; the respondent participated in the inquiry proceedings and admitted his unauthorized absence, and also submitted a written submission admitting guilt, and requested to conclude the inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted a finding holding that the charge is proved. Based on the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued and taking note of the material evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed the punishment order on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025: KHC:48912 WP No. 14672 of 2017 30.06.2015 and removed the name of the respondent from the list of trainee driver cum conductor. 5. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru, in I D NO 38/2015. The Labor Court held that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court passed an award dated 24.10.2016 setting aside the order of punishment. The corporation has assailed the award of the Labor Court in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the writ papers with care. 7. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment, i.e., his name was removed from the list of Trainee Drivers Cum Conductor. The issue revolves around - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025: KHC:48912 WP No. 14672 of 2017 unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 12.05.2014 onwards. 9. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on health grounds. 10. 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 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 a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justifying 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. 11. It is pivotal to note that the respondent admitted the charges of unauthorized absence by a written submission. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025: KHC:48912 WP No. 14672 of 2017 Despite the admission of the unauthorized absence, the Labor Court condoned the misconduct by placing reliance on a medical certificate, Ex W1, produced by the respondent. This is incorrect. The Labor Court has failed to observe whether the medical document inspires confidence with cogent, supported documents. "In the absence of a clinical prescription, the medical certificate could not be relied upon; to be more concise, without a clinical prescription, the medical certificate was not reliable. The Labor Court has erred on facts and in law by recording a finding as to the status of the respondent as a 'trainee', when the core issue for adjudication related solely to the unauthorized absence from duty. I may venture to say that the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the court proceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding the respondent's status as a trainee, thereby failing to address the actual charge of unauthorized absence from service. 12. It is noted that the Labor Court has held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. This is incorrect. The reason is apparent. The domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with due process - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025: KHC:48912 WP No. 14672 of 2017 of law and following the principles of natural justice. The respondent admitted his guilt and pleaded his absence by writing a letter on September 29, 2014. Hence, the finding on the preliminary issue is liable to be set aside. 13. Lastly, counsel Sri. Hareesh Bhandary submits that by virtue of an interim order, the respondent was reinstated to duty. However, even after reinstatement, he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, and his name was removed from the list of trainee on 30.11.2021. Counsel submits that he has filed a memo furnishing the order of dismissal dated 30.11.2021, and the same may be placed on record, and an appropriate order may be passed. 14. Submission is noted. Memo furnishing the order of dismissal dated 30.11.2021is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that the name of respondent was removed from the list of trainee on 30.11.2021. The past and present 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. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025: KHC:48912 WP No. 14672 of 2017 15. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 06.09.2016 on the domestic inquiry is quashed. The award dated 24.10.2016, passed by the Labor Court Mysore, in I.D.NO.38/2015 is quashed. The punishment order dated 30.06.2015 is confirmed. 16. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal 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.: 24