- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43206 WP No. 9367 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 9367 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: S.THIPPESWAMY, S/O. SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BELAGATTA VILLAGE AND POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …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 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:43206 WP No. 9367 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri.Shekar.L., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The brief facts are these: The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Driver- Cum-Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation in 2013. On 06.09.2014, he was discharging his duties as Driver- Cum-Conductor on Bengaluru-Vijayawada route. It is said that near the place Nellur, four passengers stopped the bus and boarded the bus. The petitioner asked them to pay the bus fare of Rs.155/- each amounting to Rs.620/- from four passengers who were traveling from Nellur to Ongole. But, the passengers refused to pay Rs.155/- each and were ready to pay (Rs.125/- X 4) Rs.500/-. Therefore, he requested them to get down from the bus. It is contended that at that moment, the Checking staff boarded the bus and treated four passengers as ticketless passengers. The Checking Staff prepared a penalty receipt for Rs.2,000/- for four passengers and also prepared a offence memo alleging that the bus conductor had neither collected the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43206 WP No. 9367 of 2021 bus fare nor issued tickets to four passengers. The four passengers refused to pay the penalty and decided not to travel in that bus and got down from the bus and went to catch some other bus. The checking staff issued offence memo to the petitioner. A report was sent by the checking staff. Based on the report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging NINC. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and denied the charges. The explanation was not satisfactory, hence the Corporation decided to conduct an inquiry and accordingly, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same. The explanation was not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order and removed him from service on 03.12.2015. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner raised a dispute before the III Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43206 WP No. 9367 of 2021 Reference No.02/2017. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated 03.05.2018 dismissed the reference. The workman has questioned the award in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard, the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 5. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do no require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the petitioner came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct i.e., Non issue of tickets and Non-collection of fare and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service. It is pivotal to note that the petitioner was conducting the bus that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43206 WP No. 9367 of 2021 route from Bengaluru - Vijayawada. It is not in dispute that bus was intercepted by the checking staff. It is also not in dispute that offence memo was issued on the spot. The charge leveled against the petitioner was that he did not issue tickets and collect fare from four passengers amounting to Rs.620/-. The workman had denied the charges leveled against him and contended that he demanded the passengers to pay the ticket fare and buy the tickets, however they refused. He also contended that the cash bag was not checked. Taking note of the explanation that was submitted by the workman, the charge were held to be proved and misconduct was upheld before the inquiry officer, so also before the Labor Court. The law is settled that once the charge is held to be proved and the act of misconduct is upheld, what is required to be considered is victimization. In the present case, there is no victimization or perversity. Hence, exercise of judicial review is very much limited. Needless to say that the duty of a Conductor is to issue tickets, collect the fare and account for the same. He is paid salary for this work. In the present case, the workman has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43206 WP No. 9367 of 2021 failed to discharge his duties diligently and honestly. The Labor Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly dismissed the reference. In my view, the dismissal is just and proper. I find no merit in the petition. The petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted if any stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30