- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29530 WP No. 21932 of 2021 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. 21932 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: JAGADISH T., S/O. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.409, 9TH D MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SRINIVASANAGARA, B.S.K, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJA H.T., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …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 GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29530 WP No. 21932 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Sri.Basavaraja.H.T., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The petitioner joined the Corporation as an Assistant. It is stated that while he was working in a fuel section, in Depot No.20, though the Depot did not receive 44,000 litres of diesel, he created a fake documents and managed to cause financial loss to the Corporation to an extent of Rs.25,04,080/-. Hence, he was issued with articles of charge. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted findings holding that the charges are proved and he was removed from service on 25.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, he raised a dispute in I.D.No.56/2017. The Labor Court held that the inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labor Court vide award dated 08.08.2018 dismissed the claim. The petitioner has assailed the award of the Labor Court in this writ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29530 WP No. 21932 of 2021 petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of writ petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments submits that the opportunity was not given to petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. He may be accorded an opportunity to participate in the inquiry. Hence, it is submitted that a direction may be issued for the Corporation to hold a fresh inquiry and consequently, the award may be quashed. By way of reply, counsel for the Corporation submits that inquiry was conducted. But he did not participate in the inquiry and she argued by saying that the Labor Court concluded that the inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper and the same has not been questioned in the present writ petition. Counsel, therefore submits that the petitioner cannot contend that there was no opportunity for him, hence, the writ petition may be rejected. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29530 WP No. 21932 of 2021 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The point that requires consideration is whether the Labor Court is justified in rejecting the claim. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue revolves around the misappropriation of the funds by the petitioner. It is alleged while he was working in a fuel section, in Depot No.20, though the Depot did not receive 44,000 litres of diesel, he created a fake documents and managed to cause financial loss to the Corporation to an extent of Rs.25,04,080/-. In the claim statement, the claimant has admitted that in 2013, under pressure allegedly exerted by the Depot Manager and other senior officials, the KMPL figures were inflated. If this is accepted, it amounts to an admission of misconduct on the part of the claimant. The claimant has further argued that employees involved in more serious offences were awarded lesser punishments, and therefore the penalty imposed on him should be set aside. This argument has been reiterated before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29530 WP No. 21932 of 2021 this Court as well. However, the same cannot be accepted, as disciplinary matters cannot be assessed on a uniform basis. Each case must be decided on its own facts, since the nature and gravity of misconduct vary from case to case. It is well settled that no uniform yardstick can be applied across all instances of misconduct, as each case depends on the seriousness of the wrongdoing as well as the employee’s past record. Further, the contention that a fresh inquiry should be conducted is also not sustainable. The reason is evident: the Labor Court has already held that the inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper, and this finding has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The Labor Court has considered the material on record in detail and rightly dismissed the claim. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32