The Divisional Controller Vs Sri S N Lokeshappa

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48910 WP No. 18517 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18517 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC NORTH DIVISION, YASHAWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU - 560022. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. S.N.LOKESHAPPA, S/O. NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT SAVANTHANAHALLI, SANKIHALLI POST, JAVAGAL HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 583125.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY H.B., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:48910 WP No. 18517 of 2018

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, T., counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person.

¶23

Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person.

¶24

The respondent is served and represented by counsel, Sri. Keshava Murthy. H.B. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing.

¶25

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 19.11.2025; on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, for the appearance of counsel for the respondent, the petition was ordered to be listed on the 26^th day of November, 2025, and it was also made clear that if no none appears on behalf of the respondent, the Court will proceed to pass orders on the merits of the case.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:48910 WP No. 18517 of 2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The petition is listed today. As already noted above,

¶30

there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.

¶31

The petition averments are as follows:

¶32

The respondent was working in the establishment of the corporation as a trainee, driver cum conductor. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 25.05.2011 to 23.12.2011, without applying for leave or without prior permission from the higher authorities. He caused inconvenience and hardship to the corporation. Based on the report submitted by the Depot Manager, articles of charge were issued. There was no explanation from the respondent. Having no option, the disciplinary authority proceeded to hold an inquiry and appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry notices were issued calling upon him to participate in the inquiry proceedings; the respondent participated in the inquiry proceedings and admitted charges, and further stated he has no evidence. The statement of the respondent was acknowledged, and the inquiry officer submitted a finding

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48910 WP No. 18517 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

holding that the charge is proved. Based on the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued, and there was no reply from the respondent; taking note of the material evidence on record, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order on 18.01.2013 and removed the name of the respondent from the list of trainee driver cum conductor.

¶36

Aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bangalore, in Reference NO 16/2015. The Labor Court held that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court passed an award dated 04.12.2017 set aside the order of punishment. The corporation

¶37

has assailed the award of the Labor Court in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

¶38

Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the writ papers with care.

¶39

The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48910 WP No. 18517 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment, i.e., his name was removed from the list of Trainee Drivers Cum Conductor. The issue revolves around unauthorized absence. The charge made against the respondent was that he remained absent unauthorizedly from duty from 25.05.2011 onwards.

¶43

It is the specific contention of the Corporation that no leave application was submitted, even if it is submitted, that should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate if the leave is sought on health grounds.

¶44

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 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 justifying disciplinary action against the

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:48910 WP No. 18517 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

delinquent workman. The quantum of punishment in cases of misconduct of absence from duty without leave would depend upon the facts of each case.

¶49

It is pivotal to note that the respondent admitted the charges of unauthorized absence. Despite the admission of the unauthorized absence, the Labor Court condoned the misconduct by holding that based on the medical records, the corporation permitted the respondent to report to duty. This is incorrect. The Labor Court has failed to observe that no medical documents were furnished by the respondent. The Labor Court has erred on facts and in law by recording a finding as to the status of the respondent as a 'trainee', when the core issue for adjudication related solely to the unauthorized absence from duty. I may venture to say that the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the court proceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding the respondent's status as a trainee, thereby failing to address the actual charge of unauthorized absence from service.

¶50

It is noted that the Labor Court has held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48910 WP No. 18517 of 2018

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

and proper. This is incorrect. The reason is apparent. The domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with due process of law and following the principles of natural justice. The respondent admitted the charges and further stated that he has no evidence. Hence, the finding on the preliminary issue is liable to be set aside.

¶54

Lastly, counsel Sri. Hareesh Bhandary submits that by virtue of an interim order, the respondent was reinstated to duty. However, even after reinstatement, he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, and his name was removed from the list of trainee on 30.06.2022. Counsel submits that he has filed a memo furnishing the order of dismissal dated 30.06.2022, and the same may be placed on record, and an appropriate order may be passed.

¶55

Submission is noted. Memo furnishing the order of dismissal dated 30.06.2022 is placed on record. A perusal of the same reflects that the name of the respondent was removed from the list of trainee on 30.062022. The past and present conduct of the respondent would reveal that he is not interested in discharging his duties diligently. Such an

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48910 WP No. 18517 of 2018

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

employee does not require any sympathy, much less a misplaced sympathy.

¶59

The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 21.10.2015 on the domestic inquiry vide Annexure-E is quashed. The award dated 04.12.2017, passed by the Labor Court Bangalore in Reference No 16/2015 vide Annexure G, is quashed. The punishment order dated 18.01.2013 is confirmed.

¶60

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶61

Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and interim relief, if any, stands discharged.

¶62

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶63

KMV

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

The Divisional Controller v. Sri S N Lokeshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri S N Lokeshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Ibm India Limited Vs Mrs.Prameela R

The Group B Committee Vs the Controlling Authority Under

N Udya Shankara Narayana Bhat Vs the Union of India

Sri Chidanand Hugar Vs Divisional Controller

Sri M K Doddaiah Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Devaki R Vs the Managing Director