Dismissed¶¶62

The Divisional Controller v. G Ramesh

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025WA/1633/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed; intra-Court appeal bars re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of appellate reasoning for that of the learned Single Judge; BMTC Divisional Controller v. G. Ramesh; dismissal for alleged bribe acceptance overturned by Labour Court; reinstatement within three months with 25% backwages upheld; enquiry report 07.05.2016; dismissal order 27.07.2016; Labour Court award 25.05.2019 (Annexure-C); Single Judge judgment 19.07.2023; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; L-KSRTC; High Court of Karnataka, 24.11.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:48386-DB.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the writ appeal failed and was dismissed, leaving the Labour Court award of reinstatement with 25% backwages undisturbed, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. ¶¶62

The Divisional Controller Vs G Ramesh — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 19.07.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38722/2019 (L-KSRTC), which upheld the Labour Court award of reinstatement with 25% backwages, contained error sufficient to justify allowing this writ appeal. +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

In this intra-Court writ appeal, it is not open to the Court to undertake a further examination of the factual aspects of the case or to re-appreciate the evidence, nor is it expected to substitute its reasoning for that of the learned Single Judge.

¶¶59

Ratio / Principle

On an anxious consideration of the pleadings, contentions and materials on record, the Court found no error in the learned Single Judge's judgment and no merit in the writ appeal, which therefore failed and was dismissed.

¶¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Writ Appeal No. 1633 of 2023 (L-KSRTC), decided 24.11.2025 — oral judgment per Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil joining. Filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act by the Divisional Controller, BMTC Central Division against the judgment dated 19.07.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38722/2019, which had upheld the Labour Court award dated 25.05.2019 setting aside the dismissal (order dated 27.07.2016, following enquiry report dated 07.05.2016) of a workman alleged to have accepted a bribe from one Veerbhadrachar for providing employment to his son, and directing reinstatement within three months with 25% backwages. Holding: in an intra-Court appeal the Court will not re-examine factual aspects or re-appreciate evidence, nor substitute its reasoning for that of the Single Judge; finding no error in the judgment and no merit in the appeal, the Bench dismissed the writ appeal and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48386-DB WA No. 1633 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.1633 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER B.M.T.C. CENTRAL DIVISION (ZONE)

¶12

BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

¶13

CENTRAL OFFICE,

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

K. H. ROAD,

¶16

SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶17

&APPELLANT

¶18

(BY SMT. RENUKA H. R., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

G. RAMESH S/O GANGADHARAIAH

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48386-DB WA No. 1633 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.53, DODDABELE LAYOUT KENGERI,

¶24

BENGALURU-560 060.

¶25

&RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.38722/2019, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:48386-DB WA No. 1633 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶36

This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.38722/2019 (L-KSRTC).

¶37

The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the Order of the Labour Court dated 25.05.2019 which was produced as Annexure-C. The Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent herein and had directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent into service within three months with 25% backwages.

¶38

We have heard Smt. Renuka H.R., learned

¶39

standing counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Shri. L. Shekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48386-DB WA No. 1633 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has reinstated the workman but is aggrieved by the direction to pay backwages. It is submitted that the allegations against the workman were serious and that the direction to pay backwages to a person who was accused of accepting bribe from a person seeking employment as Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator was unwarranted. It is submitted that the allegation of bribe taking, had been clearly found in the enquiry and that interference by the Labour Court was therefore unjustifiable. It is further submitted that these grounds were specifically raised before the learned Single Judge, which were not considered in the proper perspective.

¶43

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that it was after considering the factual aspects of the matter as disclosed by the evidence on record, that the Labour Court had set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48386-DB WA No. 1633 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

with 25% backwages. It is submitted that there is no ground made out to interfere with the said findings of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge.

¶47

We notice that the allegation against the

¶48

employee was that he has accepted the bribe from one Veerbhadrachar for providing employment to his son. A full-fledged enquiry was conducted against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report dated 07.05.2016, finding that the charges raised stood proved. The Disciplinary Authority, after putting the employee on notice, passed an order on 27.07.2016 dismissing the respondent from service. The order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court.

¶49

The Labour Court considered the contentions advanced and found that the complainant, Veerabhadrachar, had first given a complaint to the Police stating that he had given a loan to the respondent, which was not returned. The said complaint was closed directing Veerabhadrachar to approach the Civil Court. Thereafter,

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48386-DB WA No. 1633 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Veerabhadrachar submitted a complaint to the appellant

¶53

stating that the respondent had accepted bribe by way of cheque from Veerabadrachar, assuring to secure a job for his son. The Labour Court found that the complainant Veerabadrachar was not examined before the enquiry officer or before the Labour Court. It was further found that the respondent had a clear case that he had taken loan from one Basavaraju and the cheques had been issued to return the said loans.

¶54

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court further found that the originals of the cheque had not been produced before the Court. The handwriting on the photocopies were found to be different. Further, it was found that the Management had not proved the allegations against the respondent by examining any independent witness. It is on these findings that the order of dismissal was set aside and reinstatement was ordered with 25% backwages.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48386-DB WA No. 1633 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The learned Single Judge also considered the

¶58

contentions advanced and found that the Award of the Labour Court does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity. It was found that the Labour Court, while setting aside the order of dismissal has exercised the discretionary powers for award of backwages taking note of all relevant aspects.

¶59

In this intra-Court appeal, it would not be open to this Court to undertake a further examination of the factual aspects of the case or to attempt a re-appreciation of the evidence. We are not expected to substitute our

¶60

reasoning for that of the learned Single Judge. On an anxious consideration of the pleadings, contentions and the materials on record, we find no error in the judgment. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.

¶61

The writ appeal therefore fails, the same is accordingly

¶62

dismissed .

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:48386-DB WA No. 1633 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Pending interlocutory applications shall stand

¶67