- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE ] THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.13433 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL DIVISION K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER …PETITIONER (BY SMT.RENUKA H R.,ADVOCATE) AND: S.ESHWAR C/O.VICE PRESIDENT KSRTC KARMIKARA SANGHA (INTER) NO.460, 15TH CROSS, 'G' BLOCK RAMAKRISHNANAGAR MYSURU-570 023 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI L.SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 12.11.2019 IN I.D.NO.47/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the award dated 12.11.2019 in ID No.47/2012 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Bengaluru. 2. In terms of the said award, the basic pay of the workman was reduced by three annual increments with cumulative effect by treating the period of his suspension as not on duty vide order dated 11.03.2009 and the said punishment order dated 11.03.2009 was set-aside. It is also held that the respondent-driver is entitled for all the benefits in view of setting aside the punishment order dated 11.03.2009. 3. The facts are as under: On 08.04.2005, the respondent-driver was on duty on the bus plying from Bengaluru to Mysuru and the officials of the petitioner-Corporation checked the Bus and found that the respondent-driver was in possession of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 unaccounted cash of ₹300/- and it is alleged that he made an attempt to sell the tickets to the passengers, who are waiting in Mysore Mallige Platform at Bengaluru Central Bus Station. 3.1 The allegation is that the respondent-driver tried to sell the tickets for a higher price in black market. It is also alleged that there was huge rush as Ugadi Festival Holidays commenced from 09.04.2005. 3.2 The charge memo was issued to the respondent- driver. Later, the articles of charge was issued. However, the respondent-driver denied the allegation. 3.3 The Domestic Inquiry was held and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment by reducing basic pay of the respondent-driver by one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect and the period of suspension was treated as not on duty. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 3.4 The respondent-driver filed an appeal against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority examined the records and found that the punishment imposed is inadequate and enhanced the quantum of punishment by denying three annual increments with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was treated as not on duty. 3.5 The respondent-driver on raising the industrial dispute before the Tribunal and as noted above, the respondent's claim was allowed. The Tribunal set-aside the order of punishment. Thus, in effect, the original order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority stands restored. 3.6 In terms of the said order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent's increment is withheld for two years without cumulative effect and the period of suspension treated as not on duty has also been set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, taking through the facts of the case, would submit that the misconduct alleged against the respondent was very much established in the Domestic Inquiry. The respondent-driver took a defence that he purchased the ticket on behalf of a differently abled passenger who was not in a position to buy ticket on account of heavy rush in the platform and he gave ₹524/- to the driver and the driver purchased four tickets for differently abled person and his family members worth of ₹224/- and he was on the way to handover the tickets as well as ₹300/- and during that period, he was intercepted. Thus, the possession of the tickets and excess cash is very much established and the driver is required to establish the fact that he indeed went to purchase the ticket on behalf of the differently abled person. 4.1 Learned counsel for petitioner would also urge that differently abled person though examined, no document is produced to show that the person is differently abled and in the cross-examination, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 differently abled person has admitted the fact that he travelled without a ticket and it is also stated that the differently abled person was exempted from buying ticket as such the contention of the respondent-driver is not established. 5. 5. Learned counsel for respondent-driver would urge that the burden cast on the respondent-driver to explain possession of ₹300/- and purchasing of tickets, is very much discharged by adducing the evidence of the witness, namely, differently abled person and the Tribunal has recorded the finding that there is no financial loss to the Corporation and no evidence is led to establish the fact that the respondent had indulged in the black marketing of tickets and would also urge that the Appellate Authority erred in enhancing the punishment without issuing any notice to the respondent which is a requirement under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (for short, 'Regulations'). - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. It is noticed from the records that the driver took a defence that on the date of interception, he was on the way to handover the tickets to the differently abled person and his family members and was also about to hand over the cash after he received the change from the ticket counter. Thus the possession of cash and tickets in the hands of the driver is very much established. 8. Thus the burden is on the respondent-driver to substantiate his contention. 9. To discharge the burden, he has led evidence of the passenger who according to the respondent is differently abled and the said passenger in the cross- examination has stated that he travelled to Mysore on that day without any ticket. The Regulations do not enable the ticketless travel. The contention that the Driver purchased the ticket for the differently abled person does not appear - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 to be a valid defence, as it is not in dispute that differently abled persons are not required to buy ticket while travelling in the KSRTC Bus. If his family members had purchased the ticket, same should have been produced by the said person who is examined. 10. It is also relevant to notice that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that there is no loss caused to the Corporation in the alleged misconduct against the respondent. Whether the financial loss is caused to the Corporation or not is not the question, the question is whether the driver was found to be in possession of the excess cash than the permitted limit and was found to be in possession of the tickets. 11. As already noticed, the possession of tickets as well as excess cash beyond the permissible limit is very much admitted. It is well settled position of law that admitted facts need not be proved. The burden cast on the driver to establish the fact that he really intended to buy the tickets on behalf of differently abled person at the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 request of the Ticket Collector is discharged, cannot be accepted as the Ticket Collector is also not named in the evidence by the respondent-driver. 12. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the respondent-driver is guilty of misconduct is very much established. 13. As already noticed, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect and also held that period of suspension is not treated as not on duty. The respondent filed an appeal against the said penalty. The Appellate Authority as already noticed has enhanced the penalty under the Regulations. 14. The Appellate Authority is required to issue notice before enhancing the penalty. That procedure is not followed. Notice is not issued and to that extent, the order of the Appellate Authority enhancing the penalty without - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2238 WP No. 13433 of 2020 issuing notice to the respondent-driver is impermissible. Hence the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed; ii) The impugned award dated 12.11.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.47/2012 is set aside; iii) The order dated 11.03.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside; iv) The order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the original authority is restored; v) It is submitted that the respondent has attained the age of superannuation. All the benefits payable to the respondent shall be restored within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the award. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19