- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:388 WP No. 14582 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 14582 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISION CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BMTC, EAST DIVISION, TTMC BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560050, NOW REPRESENTED BY BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI INAYATHULLA KHAN S/O. ISMAIL KHAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CONDUCTOR, B.NO.11362, DEPOT-39, BMTC, R/AT BYLANARASAPURA VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY, S.NARAYANA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, KSRTC UNION, NO.54, 1ST FLOOR, NANJAPPA ROAD, BEHIND VIJAYA BANK, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:388 WP No. 14582 of 2024 K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 5600027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D.R., 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 DICTATING OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, counsel for the petitionerand Sri. Anandeeswara D.R.,counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. The short facts are as follows. The respondent was a conductor in the establishment of the corporation. He remained absent unauthorizedly for the duty from 09.02.2012 onwards without prior permission/the sanction of leave. Hence, the Depot Manager issued a call notice, but the respondent did not report for duty. The Disciplinary Authority issued Articles of Charge. The respondent did not submit his explanation. The Disciplinary Authority decided to hold an inquiry. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:388 WP No. 14582 of 2024 and the inquiry was conducted as per the KSRTC regulations. The respondent participated in the inquiry proceedings and cross-examined the management witness. In the inquiry proceedings, the respondent contended that he had been unwell and accordingly submitted a leave letter via postal service; nevertheless, he was treated as an absentee. Taking note of the material evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report that the charge of absence was proved. In the meantime, the respondent sought permission to report for duty and was permitted to report to duty. Taking note of the material on record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a minor punishment by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, treating the period of absence as not on duty, treating the period of absent break in service, not entitled to gratuity and monetary benefits. 3. After three years, the respondent raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.53/ 2016.The Tribunal held that the inquiry conducted by the corporation was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 18.12.2023 allowed the claim statement. Under these circumstances, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:388 WP No. 14582 of 2024 corporation has filed the present writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. 5. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D. PUROSTHAM in WA 3497/2009 dated 16.08.2010. 2. NORTH-WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. S.J. FERNANDES - ILR 2001 KAR 1264. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 7. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to unauthorized absence. The petitioner remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 09.02.2012 onwards. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:388 WP No. 14582 of 2024 8. 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 a 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 justified disciplinary action against the delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct of absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case. 9. The respondent contended that he had submitted a leave letter by post due to illness, and despite this submission, he was recorded as an absentee. The respondent asserted that, in addition to his other points, a medical certificate had been submitted. Relying on Exhibit M10, the Tribunal condoned the misconduct. The Tribunal's reliance on Exhibit M10 to condone the misconduct is untenable, primarily because the medical documents themselves do not inspire confidence. The medical certificate lacks credibility, given that the scribe of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:388 WP No. 14582 of 2024 certificate was not examined during the proceedings. Furthermore, in the absence of an accompanying prescription, the medical certificate itself lacks sufficient weight or evidentiary value. The mere act of referencing an illness, without submitting the required leave application through the proper channels, does not entitle an employee to a dispensation, much less misplaced sympathy. The Tribunal erred in law by categorizing the prolonged, unauthorized absence as minor misconduct, thereby ignoring established judicial precedents that such absence constitutes a serious violation of discipline. The Tribunal’s decision is vitiated by a misapplication of the law, as long-term unauthorized absence may reasonably give rise to an inference of abandonment of service, not a minor misconduct. I may venture to say the Industrial Tribunal fell into a palpable error by exhibiting misplaced sympathy and failing to take into account the gravity of the unauthorized absence. 10. The Industrial Tribunal erred in interfering with the penalty, as the punishment was not grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, failing the test for judicial interference - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:388 WP No. 14582 of 2024 with managerial discretion. The Tribunal’s discretionary power under Section 11A was not exercised judiciously; the management's action was supported by established misconduct. 11. Finally, it must be noted that the Tribunal failed to consider the significant delay in the raising of the dispute. Given the facts and the entirety of the circumstances, the Tribunal's award is insupportable and must, therefore, be set aside and quashed. 12. The writ of Certiorari is issued. The award dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.NO.53/2016 vide Annexure-A is quashed. The order of punishment is confirmed. 13. Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on several decisions, but I do not think the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the decisions referred to supra. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:388 WP No. 14582 of 2024 Because of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim order granted by this court, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications and interim directions, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8