- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43193 WP No. 3226 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. 3226 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, BY IT'S CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANEPPANAVAR RAMESH BASETTEPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K.NARAYANA, C/O. PRESIDENT, KSRTC, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, MAJDOOR SANGHA (R), C/O. B.M.S.O.T.C. CROSS, COTTONPET, BENGALURU - 560 053. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, 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:43193 WP No. 3226 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri.Aneppanavar Ramesh Basetteppa., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Naveen Kumar., counsel on behalf of Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa., for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The respondent was a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. On 23.12.2008, he was on duty in the bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing registration No.F-111 that was plying on the route from Mysuru to Bengaluru. The checking officials intercepted the bus at Bengaluru Bus Station and it was found that the workman was in possession of unauthorized amount of Rs.640/- and it was found that he had not declared cash of Rs.640/-. He was issued with Articles of charge notifying the irregularities and misconduct committed by him. He did not submit his explanation. Hence the disciplinary authority decided to conduct an inquiry. The Inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his report holding that the charges are proved. He was issued with a second show cause notice. He submitted his reply to the same. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43193 WP No. 3226 of 2021 disciplinary authority based on material on record, by considering the facts and circumstances and also the past history of the workman, passed the punishment order by reducing the basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect to two lower stages vide order dated 28.01.2010. The workman raised a dispute and the same came to be referred to Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.266/2012 for adjudication. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 20.09.2019 set aside the order of punishment. The Corporation has assailed 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 and the records with utmost care. 4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Tribunal requires interference. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43193 WP No. 3226 of 2021 5. The facts are sufficiently said and they do not require reiteration. The issue revolves within a narrow compass and relates to the setting aside of order of minor punishment. Suffice it to note that the workman came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of minor punishment. The charge made against the workman was non- declaration of personal cash of Rs.640/-. A perusal of the records reflects that the workman admitted that he was in possession of personal cash of Rs.640/-, however he contended that his wife was unwell, he came to the Depot to submit leave application, but the Traffic Controller did not sanction the leave and sent him to work, hence, he could not declare the personal cash in the log-sheet. In the cross examination, the workman admitted the possession of personal cash. A perusal of the evidence of the workman depicts that there is a variation and contradiction. In one breath, he says that there was no Traffic Controller in the Depot, hence he did not declare the cash; and in the next, he contended that the Traffic Controller did not sanction the leave and sent him to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43193 WP No. 3226 of 2021 work, hence, he could not declare the personal cash in the log- sheet. There is a contradictory evidence regarding the presence of the Traffic Controller. If one reads the evidence of the workman carefully, there is a glaring contradictions in the evidence. The witness's credibility is undermined by their contradictory statements. The evidence presented by the workman contains several inconsistencies. Furthermore, the Corporation has got its own Circulars, and one of the Circular dated 04.01.1999 relates to declaration of personal cash. The respondent has violated the Circular dated 04.01.1999. The law is settled that, when the charge is proved and misconduct is upheld, what is required to be considered is victimization. In the present case, there is no victimization. Hence, the Tribunal could not have exercised power to modify the order of minor punishment. Moreover, setting aside the order of minor penalty is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to set aside the order of minor penalty. The Tribunal could not have been pressed into the aspect of minor penalty. The Managerial decision to impose a minor - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43193 WP No. 3226 of 2021 penalty is absolute, and the same cannot be modified by the Tribunal unless there is a perversity and victimization. I may venture to say that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. 6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 20.09.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.266/2012 vide Annexure-G is quashed. The order of punishment dated 28.10.2010 is confirmed. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal 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.: 17