- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6979 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MYSURU RURAL DIVISION, MYSURU, HEREIN REP BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M P NAGAPRASAD, S/O LT P M PARAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, REP. BY THE PRESIDENT, KARANTAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPROATION, EMPLOYEES UNION, MYSURU DIVISON, NO 357, 14TH MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI L SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSURR PERTAINING TO REF.NO.105/2018, WHICH HAS CULMINATED IN ITS AWARD DTD 16.11.2021 VIDE ANNX- D AND ETC. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Petition is filed assailing the award in Reference No.105/2018 dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru. 2. In terms of the said award, Reference is allowed and the financial benefits withheld in terms of the punishment order are directed to be restored in favour of the petitioner. 3. Point for reference that was placed before the Tribunal for adjudication was to consider as to whether the order dated 13.07.2016 withholding the basic pay by one yearly increment permanently is justified? 4. The pleadings would reveal that the respondent- employee was subjected to disciplinary enquiry on the premise that the medical certificate annexed along with the leave application is suspicious and based on this, the charge sheet was issued to the respondent-employee. The respondent - employee denied the charges and he participated in the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022 domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer found that the charges are proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty by withholding one yearly increment permanently. 5. The respondent-employee raised the industrial dispute. The enquiry was held to be not fair and proper. However, the parties were permitted to lead evidence. The Tribunal has concluded that the charges are not proved and accordingly has set-aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent-employee filed an application for leave and annexed a medical certificate along with the said application stating that he is suffering from jaundice and the report was secured to ascertain as to whether the medical certificate annexed along with the leave application is genuine or not. The said report is marked at Exhibit.M8. 7. The medical report would indicate that the respondent-employee has taken treatment as outpatient from Dr.J.Inbanathan in K.R. Hospital, Mysuru. The respondent's name is registered as outpatient on 01.09.2015 and the report - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022 would also indicate that the card issued to the patient is not maintained by the Hospital and as such there cannot be any authentication of the said card issued to the patient. 8. From the aforementioned document, it is very much apparent that the respondent-employee has consulted the Doctor on 01.09.2015. The certificate at Exhibit M4 which is annexed along with the application seeking leave is dated 01.09.2015. In the certificate it is mentioned that the respondent-employee needs rest from 01.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 for restoration of his health. The document at Exhibit M6 is the certificate dated 01.10.2015 and it also records that the respondent-employee needs rest from 01.10.2015 to 31.10.2015 for restoration of his health. 9. Since the Authority which has issued the certificate has not disowned the certificates referred to above, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the respondent-employee. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation would urge that the Tribunal is not justified in passing the impugned award. It is his contention that evidence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022 placed on record would indicate that the respondent-employee did not need that much rest as he consulted the Doctor as an outpatient and there was no need to claim leave for such a long period. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - employee would urge that the certificates produced along with the leave application are said to be genuine and the Doctor has certified that the respondent-employee needed rest for the periods mentioned in the aforementioned certificates. 12. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 13. Admittedly, the leave is sanctioned to the respondent-employee for the aforementioned periods mentioned in the certificates. Since the petitioner- Corporation doubted the authenticity of the certificates, report is sought from the Hospital. The Hospital authorities have submitted that Dr.J.Inbanathan has issued the certificates referred to above and it is also stated in the endorsement that the respondent - employee was treated in the hospital as an outpatient. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022 14. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the Tribunal is justified in holding that the charge is not proved. 15. Assuming that the petitioner-Corporation also did not believe in the endorsement issued by the Hospital authorities and if it is the view of the petitioner-Corporation that the certificates at Exs.M4 and M6 are not issued by Dr.J.Inbanathan, it was incumbent upon the petitioner - Corporation to examine Dr.J.Inbanathan to assert its contention that the certificates are not issued by Dr.J.Inbanathan. Having not done, the petitioner - Corporation cannot contend that the certificates are not genuine. 16. This Court has considered the reasons assigned by the Industrial Tribunal and the Industrial Tribunal has rightly concluded that the charges are not proved and accordingly held that the respondent-employee is entitled to the benefits which are withheld in terms of the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 17. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said award as the same is based on acceptable evidence on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022 18. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. 19. The financial benefits payable to the respondent - employee shall be paid within three months days from today, failing which the petitioner - Corporation shall pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from today till date of payment. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34