- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29529 WP No. 16301 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 16301 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC, NORTH DIVISION, YESHWANTHAPUR, BENGALURU-560022, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. GIRITHIMMAIAH G., S/O. LATE GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT T.NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572143. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KANTHARAJA V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29529 WP No. 16301 of 2019 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 and Sri.Kantharaja.V, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. The petition averments are as follows: The respondent was working as a trainee driver cum conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 07.02.2013 to 04.06.2014. The Articles of Charge were issued. The inquiry officer was appointed and submitted his report holding that the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment order, and the name of the respondent was removed from the selection list on 24.11.2015. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bengaluru, in I.D.No.20/2016. The Labor Court held that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29529 WP No. 16301 of 2019 parties led evidence. The Labor Court vide award dated 11.10.2018 set aside the order of punishment. The Corporation has assailed the award of the Labor Court 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 papers with care. 4. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 5. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment, i.e., removed his name from the selection list. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 07.02.2013 to 04.06.2014. 6. It is the specific contention of the Corporation that no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29529 WP No. 16301 of 2019 should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on health grounds. 7. An employee is under an obligation not to absent himself from work without good cause during the time at which he is required to be at work. Absence without leave is 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 a violation of discipline. The absence without leave constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct or absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case. 8. The respondent contended that he had been suffering from ill health and, for the first time, produced certain medical records before the Labor Court. The Labor Court erred in condoning the misconduct by placing reliance on such documents. It is pertinent to note that the respondent had not produced any of these medical records before the inquiry officer, although there was no impediment preventing him from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29529 WP No. 16301 of 2019 doing so during the course of the disciplinary proceedings. It is further noticed that the respondent had been selected to undergo training as a driver and his name had been included in the select list. However, despite such selection, he remained unauthorizedly absent. The Labour Court failed to take this material circumstance into consideration and erroneously condoned the misconduct. Such a finding cannot be sustained. I may venture to say that the Labor Court failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. Lastly, counsel Sri.B.L.Sanjeev submits that by virtue of an interim order, the respondent was reinstated to duty. However, even after reinstatement, he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty. Counsel submits that he has filed a memo stating that the Corporation has removed his name from the selection list on 31.10.2023, and the same may be placed on record, and an appropriate order may be passed. Submission is noted. The memo is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that after reinstatement, the respondent did not report to duty. The past and present conduct of the respondent would reveal that he is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29529 WP No. 16301 of 2019 interested in discharging his duties diligently. Such an employee does not require any sympathy, much less a misplaced sympathy. 9. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The award dated 11.10.2018, passed by the Labor Court, Bengaluru, in I.D.No.20/2016, is quashed. The punishment order dated:24.11.2015 is confirmed. 10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and interim relief, if any, stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22