- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18325 WP No. 71385 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 71385 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: S.M.SHAKEEL S/O. BUDENSAB AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. WARD NO.VIII, GACHIKERI, ARASIKERI ROAD, HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC, BELLARY DIVISION, REPTD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI DATED 12/05/2010 IN KID.NO.60/2005 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D; CONSEQUENT TO THE QUASHING OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT HUBLI, DATED 12/05/2010 IN KID.NO.60/2005, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICE, WITH FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18325 WP No. 71385 of 2012 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. 2. This petition is filed assailing the award dated 12.05.2010 passed in KID No.60/2005 by the Labour Court, Hubballi, rejecting the petitioner's claim petition. 3. The petitioner was employed as trainee on 04.03.1997 and was working as a conductor in the respondent - Corporation. The respondent- Corporation initiated disciplinary inquiry in respect of three distinct misconduct of not issuing ticket or not collecting the fare after issuing the ticket. 4. It is stated that each of the three incidents of misconduct took place on three different dates and the last misconduct was when the inquiries were pending in respect of two earlier misconducts and 2nd misconduct was when the enquiry was pending in respect of the 1st misconduct. 5. The respondent – Corporation contends that before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has admitted his guilt relating - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18325 WP No. 71385 of 2012 to the charges in respect of all the three incidents and thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from the service. 6. The dispute is raised by the petitioner. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that enquiry was fair and proper. However, evidence was led on the plea of victimization. The Labour Court on considering the evidence on record and also considering the past history where on 26 occasions, the petitioner was found guilty for the misconducts held that petitioner is not entitled the relief and rejected the petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that under the Regulation 23 of C and D Regulations 1971, the obligation is cast on the respondent to issue 2nd show-cause bringing to the notice of the petitioner, the finding of the Enquiry Officer and only after hearing the petitioner on 2nd show-cause notice, the appropriate order has to be passed by the authority and admittedly the said procedure is not followed. 8. In addition to that, learned counsel further submits that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Thus, urged that the impugned award has to be set - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18325 WP No. 71385 of 2012 aside. In support of his contention that 2nd show-cause notice is a must, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh1. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation would urge that the petitioner has admitted the guilt in respect of all the three charges as such there was no question of issuing any further show-cause notice. It is also urged that the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the enquiry was fair and proper that is not questioned by the petitioner and even before this Court, a ground is not raised challenging the said finding. 10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. It is noticed from the examination chief that the petitioner admitted his signature before the Inquiry Officer. Though the petitioner has raised the contention that the signature was obtained by practicing fraud, on the assurance 1 (2008) 8 SCC 236 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18325 WP No. 71385 of 2012 that he would be let off, such a plea of fraud has not been established by leading cogent evidence. 12. It is indeed true that once the finding is recorded, then a second show-case notice is required to be issued by the respondent, relating to the penalty to be imposed or relating to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, so as to afford the petitioner an opportunity to have his say on the findings. Since the petitioner has not contested the charges and has also not raised a dispute relating to the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the inquiry was fair and proper, the Court is of the view, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the petitioner has accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer, who recorded a finding that the petitioner admitted the charges and when he has not questioned the finding of the Labour Court on the fairness of the enquiry. Further, as the petitioner himself has pleaded in the petition that his signature was obtained on an assurance that he would be let off, the Court is constrained to take the view that the petitioner has admitted the charges, and the petitioner has not raised any contention denying misconduct as alleged. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18325 WP No. 71385 of 2012 13. Under these circumstances, the aforementioned judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner do not come to the aid of the petitioner. As far as victimization is concerned, the Court has recorded the evidence. It is also an admitted fact that on 26 occasions, the petitioner was imposed penalties for misconduct. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is also of the view that the penalty of dismissal imposed does not call for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. With these observations, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK/PMP Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26