- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46080 WP No. 3945 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. 3945 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, K.S.R.T.C., TUMAKURU DIVISION, TUMAKURU, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY, THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. P.HARISHA S/O. PENNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT HOSAKERE VILLAGE, MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 133. …RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) 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:46080 WP No. 3945 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. 2. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 24.02.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that notice to the respondent is served. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The brief facts are these: The respondent was a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained absent from duties unauthorizedly from 24.11.2016 to 20.12.2017 without prior permission. The Depot Manager submitted a report in this regard. The disciplinary authority issued articles of charge to the respondent. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46080 WP No. 3945 of 2021 issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent did not reply to the same. The disciplinary authority taking note of the material on record, passed an order of punishment on 20.12.2017 and dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Principal District Judge, Tumakuru in Application No.02/2018. The Labor Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labor Court vide award dated 27.12.2019 set-aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits but without any backwages. The award passed by the Labor Court is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the true copies of the Medical Certificates - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46080 WP No. 3945 of 2021 (Exs.P1 to P7). Counsel, therefore, submits that the same may be placed on record. Submission is noted. Memo is placed on record and perused the same with care. 5. The point that requires consideration is whether the award passed by the Labor Court requires interference? 6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service on 20.12.2017. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 24.11.2016 to 20.12.2017. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that, no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on the health grounds. An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46080 WP No. 3945 of 2021 required to be at work. Absence without leave is a 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 violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes a misconduct justified 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. In the present case, the delinquent remained absent unauthorizedly from duty without submitting a leave application or without prior permission from the higher authority. The workman contended that he was unwell and hence, he could not attend the duty. The workman furnished certain medical documents for the first time before the Labour Court and the same were marked as Ex.P1 to P7. The Labour Court by placing reliance on these documents concluded that the respondent was unwell and hence, the absence cannot be treated as willful and intentional one. This is untenable. The reason is apparent. The delinquent remained absent from duty from 24.11.2016 onwards, however he has furnished the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46080 WP No. 3945 of 2021 medical certificates (Exs.P1 to P7) dated 20.09.2017, 23.02.2017 and 20.06.2017. The certificates have no relevance to petitioner's absent from 24.11.2016. Moreover, the medical certificates are not accompanied with clinical prescriptions. It is not in dispute that the respondent was notified of the inquiry proceedings by issuing notices, despite service of notices, he did not appear. Nothing prevented the delinquent to appear before the inquiry officer and furnish the medical documents. The Labour Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter. 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 delinquent was involved in sixty-three cases in the past. The disciplinary authority took note of the material on record and rightly passed the order of punishment. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. The Labour Court could not have viewed the unauthorized absenteeism lightly. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46080 WP No. 3945 of 2021 Lastly, counsel Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., submits that a memo has been filed stating that this Court vide order dated 24.02.2021, directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent into service. Counsel further submits that subsequent to the reinstatement, the respondent remained absent from duty from 18.01.2023 and after conducting an inquiry and considering the past history of the respondent, he was dismissed from service on 22.12.2023. Counsel, therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record. Memo is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that the respondent is dismissed from service on 22.12.2023. 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. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 27.12.2019 passed by Principal District Judge, Tumakuru in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46080 WP No. 3945 of 2021 Application No.02/2018 vide Annexure-c is quashed. The order of dismissal dated 20.12.2017 is confirmed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of confirmation of order of dismissal, the interim order granted, if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9