The Divisional Controller v. Sri S Shivanna

NC:(2026:KHC:13125( WP(No.(14336(of(2022( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(4 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(ANANT(RAMANATH(HEGDE(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(14336(OF(2022((L-KSRTC)(

BETWEEN:(( ( THE,DIVISIONAL,CONTROLLER, KSRTC,,BANGALORE,CENTRAL,DIVISION,, K,H,ROAD, BANGALORE,-,560027, …PETITIONER, , (BY,SMT.,RENUKA,H,R.,,ADVOCATE), ( AND:( ( SRI,S,SHIVANNA, CONDUCTOR,TOKEN,NO.,3707, Digitally REP.,BY,GENERAL,SECRETARY, signedtiby KSRTC,AND,BMTC,UNITED,EMPLOYEES, PRAMILA0G0V UNION,NO.23,,4TH,MAIN,ROAD, Location: MATHIKERE,EXTENSION,, HIGH0COURT BANGALORE,-,560054, OF …RESPONDENT, KARNATAKA , (RESPONDENT,SERVED), , , , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND,227,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,,PRAYING,TO-CALL, FOR,THE,ENTIRE,RECORDS,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,PRESIDING, OFFICER,, INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL,, BANGALORE, IN, I.D.NO.165/2013, VIDE, ANNX-A., QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED,

AWARD DTD 02.03.2021 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.165/2013 VIDE ANNX-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed assailing the award dated

02.03.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore.

¶2In terms of the said Award, the claim made by the respondent-workman, who was the first party before the Tribunal, was allowed and the penalty imposed by the second party-Corporation before the Tribunal, who is the petitioner before this Court, is set aside.

¶3In terms of the order of penalty dated

30.06.2012, the present basic pay of the respondent-workman, was reduced by two stages with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was treated as not on duty.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation referring to the facts of the case would urge that, on

26.03.2010, the respondent-workman was on duty as a Conductor on route from Bengaluru to Kallakurchi. The bus was intercepted at Attibele and according to the petitioner, there were 27 passengers. Out of 27 passengers, 23 passengers were supposed to purchase the ticket and only passengers had purchased the ticket and three passengers had booked the ticket in advance and one passenger was a child.

¶5The petitioner-Corporation alleges that the respondent-workman had not issued a ticket to one of the passengers, who was required to purchase a ticket for ₹82/-. On this ground, a domestic enquiry was held and the respondent-workman participated in the enquiry and he disputed the charges.

¶6After considering the evidence on record, the enquiry officer found that the charge is proved and the disciplinary authority issued a second show-cause notice. The respondent-workman denied the finding of the enquiry officer. Then the respondent-Corporation imposed the

penalty of withholding basic pay by two stages with cumulative effect.

¶7Aggrieved by the aforementioned penalty, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute and the Court has come to the conclusion that the charges are not proved and no loss is established to the respondent-Corporation and accordingly, the penalty was set aside.

¶8Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation would submit that, in the cross-examination addressed to the witness of the petitioner, a suggestion was put to the witness of the petitioner stating that there were 22 passengers who have been issued tickets and one person had lost the ticket.

¶9Referring to the said suggestion, it is urged that the fact that one passenger was not found to have the ticket is very much established and it is for the respondent-workman to establish that the ticket was indeed issued to him.

¶10The learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation would also urge that the Tribunal has over-looked an important document, namely, the penalty memo issued to the passenger wherein he was asked to pay the penalty for having travelled without ticket and the said memo is signed by the respondent-workman.

¶11Referring to the said penalty memo, it is contended that the fact that one of the passengers was travelling without ticket was established and on the premise that there was no loss to the Corporation in view of penalty being imposed, the Tribunal could not have set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent-workman.

¶12It is the contention of the petitioner-Corporation that if the ticket was really issued and the requisite amount was collected by the conductor from the passenger, the said amount should have been there with the conductor, however, there was a shortfall.

¶13The respondent-workman, though served with a notice, has remained absent.

¶14This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶15From the tenor of the cross-examination advanced to the witness examined on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation, it is evident that the respondent-workman has admitted that there were 22 passengers in the bus who were required to purchase the ticket after boarding the bus, in addition to one child passenger and three other passengers who had already booked the ticket in advance. Thus, it was required to be established that all the 22 passengers had been issued tickets and the respondent-workman had collected the requisite fare from them.

¶16The respondent-workman tried to raise a contention that one of the passengers, to whom the ticket was issued, had misplaced the ticket.

¶17It is pertinent to note that, if that is the case, there could not have been a deficit collection. Since, the collection was deficit, this Court is of the view that one

passenger was not issued ticket and the fare was also not collected from him.

¶18This fact is also supported by the fact that the passenger, who was found travelling without ticket, had paid the penalty for being a ticket-less passenger.

¶19This being the position, this Court is of the view that the charge is very much established.

¶20However, the Tribunal has proceeded on a wrong footing to hold that there is no loss caused to the Corporation and as such, the penalty imposed has to be set aside.

¶21The misconduct is not just dependent on the loss caused to the Corporation, but the misconduct gets established in case the ticket is not issued and the requisite fare is not collected or if the fare is collected and the ticket is not issued.

¶22Since this is a case where the ticket is not issued and the fare is also not collected, merely because there is a

subsequent penalty being collected from the ticketless passenger, it cannot be a ground to hold that there is no misconduct on the part of the workman.

¶23Further, it is also to be stated here that in the show cause notice issued to the respondent-workman, 27 past misconducts were noted.

¶24Hence the following: ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned award dated 02.03.2021 passed in Industrial Dispute No.165 of 2013 by the learned Industrial Tribunal Bangalore, is hereby set aside.

(iii) The order of penalty dated 30.06.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority of respondent-Corporation stands restored. Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27