- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32612 WP No. 60152 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 60152 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SOUTH DIVISION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. 2. BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DIRECTOR (SECURITY AND VIGILANCE), K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: ANIL M.V., ASSISTANT STORES KEEPER, ADULT, REPRESENTED BY RECOGNISHED STAFF AND WORKERS FEDERATION, NO.4/75, SIRUR PARK ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32612 WP No. 60152 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.06.2026, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER: CAV ORDER Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the petitioners and Sri.V.S.Naik, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The respondent was working as an Assistant Storekeeper in the Corporation. He came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct, and an Article of Charge was issued to him. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted findings holding that the charges are proved, and the respondent was dismissed from service on 23.02.2011. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.09.2011 modified the order of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32612 WP No. 60152 of 2016 dismissal by directing reinstatement of the respondent and with denial of three increments with cumulative effect, by treating the period of dismissal as not on duty. The respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court in Ref. No.20/2013. The Labor Court vide award dated 24.06.2015 allowed the claim petition. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is filed on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the respondent drew the court’s attention to the order of the Appellate Authority and argued that the Appellate Authority failed to discuss the charges in detail. It was submitted that the charges levelled against the workman are interlinked, and having held that Charge No.2 was not proved, Charges Nos. 1 and 3 also ought to have been held as not proved. It was vehemently contended that the charges are vague. The workman, therefore, challenged the order of the Appellate Authority by raising a dispute, and the Labor Court, upon an extensive reference to the material on record, rightly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32612 WP No. 60152 of 2016 recorded a finding that the charges were not proved and accordingly modified the punishment order. In reply, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workman is estopped from raising any contention regarding the charges or the validity of the domestic inquiry, as the workman conceded that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. She argued that Charge No.1 stood proved by Ex.M9, corroborated by Ex.M29 (self-defence statement), which evidenced phone calls made by the workman during working hours. Attention was also drawn to Ex.M29, which is the defence statement of the workman before the inquiry officer. Except for asserting that making phone calls during office hours is neither prohibited nor illegal, the workman did not deny the fact that he had made such calls during working hours. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Labor Court has failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32612 WP No. 60152 of 2016 5. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 6. The facts are adequately set forth and require no repetition. The controversy lies within a narrow compass. It is undisputed that the respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for acts of misconduct, with three charges framed against him. Of these, charge No. 2 was not proved, while charges Nos. 1 and 3 stood established. The Labor Court, however, proceeded to hold that charges 1 and 2 were interlinked, and since the respondent was exonerated of charge No. 2, he ought to have been absolved of charge No. 1 as well. A scrutiny of the impugned award reveals that the Labor Court has disregarded the material evidence on record, overlooked the respondent’s self-defence statement, and erroneously concluded that there was no violation of the Corporation’s Rules and Regulations. Such reasoning is manifestly untenable. The infirmities are apparent on the face of the record, and the award cannot be sustained. While self-defense statements are typically approached with caution, the workman in this case explicitly admitted to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32612 WP No. 60152 of 2016 making calls during working hours. Therefore, the Labor Court should have concluded that this admission established a clear violation of the Corporation's rules and regulations. The Labor Court fell into error in concluding that the donation receipts were raised solely by the wife of the workman and that the workman himself had no role in the matter. Such a finding is unsustainable in law and on the facts. The receipts in question were admittedly connected with the employment context, and the Court was bound to examine whether the workman, either directly or indirectly, facilitated or participated in their issuance. To attribute the entire act to the wife, without considering the nexus between the workman and the receipts, amounts to a misdirection. The Labor Court ought to have assessed the evidence in its entirety, including the circumstances under which the receipts were generated, the purpose they served, and whether the workman derived any benefit or was complicit in the transaction. By absolving the workman of responsibility merely on the ground that his wife raised the receipts, the Labor Court ignored the broader evidentiary context and failed to apply the settled principle that liability cannot be evaded through nominal or indirect acts. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32612 WP No. 60152 of 2016 finding, therefore, suffers from perversity and warrants interference. 7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The award dated 24.06.2015 passed by the Labor Court in Ref.No.20/2013 is quashed. The punishment order is confirmed. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.1 Sl.No.:1