Disposed¶42

Siddalingaiah Matapathi v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2025WP/5854/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC employees' writ under Articles 226/227 seeking direction to KSRTC appellate authority to decide appeal dated 30.01.2025 against suspension orders and charge sheets; earlier writ W.P.No.35910/2024 (S-KSRTC) disposed 22.01.2025 with liberty; maintainability of appeal against charge sheet left to appellate authority; Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 referred; time-bound disposal by 31.07.2025; petition disposed of; Justice B M Shyam Prasad; NC: 2025:KHC:13906.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a certified copy of the order with the appellate authority, calling upon it to dispose of their appeal on or before 31.07.2025. ¶42

Siddalingaiah Matapathi Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a certified copy of the order with the appellate authority, calling upon it to dispose of their appeal on or before 31.07.2025.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority of the Transport Corporation should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioners' appeal dated 30.01.2025 within a reasonable time. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Insofar as the decision in the pending appeal is concerned, the statement that the appeal will be considered expeditiously and disposed of on merits suffices.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

As regards the maintainability of the appeal as against the charge sheets, that is an aspect that must be considered by the appellate authority (the Court did not itself decide maintainability).

¶40

Key takeaways

The petition stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to file a certified copy of the order with the appellate authority.ratio¶42
The appellate authority is to dispose of the petitioners' appeal on or before 31.07.2025.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (B M Shyam Prasad, J.), Oral Order dated 02.04.2025 in Writ Petition No. 5854 of 2025 (S-KSRTC) [NC: 2025:KHC:13906]. Six KSRTC employees, whose earlier writ W.P.No.35910/2024 (S-KSRTC) challenging their suspension and charge sheets was disposed of on 22.01.2025 with liberty to approach the appellate authority, filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the third respondent (Chief Law Officer and Appellate Authority) to consider their appeal dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure D), which also questioned the charge sheets. Counsel for respondents stated the appeal was still pending and would be disposed of on merits with due opportunity if reasonable time were granted, while submitting that the appeal against the charge sheets could not be sustained having regard to this Court's opinion in W.P.No.35910/2024 and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28. The Court held that the assurance of expeditious, merits-based disposal sufficed, and observed that the maintainability of the appeal against the charge sheets was an aspect for the appellate authority to consider. Petition disposed of with liberty to file a certified copy of the order; appeal to be disposed of on or before 31.07.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:13906 WP No. 5854 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5854 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SIDDALINGAIAH MATAPATHI S/O LATE BASAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A 'A' BLOCK, G-3 KSRTC QUARTERS, CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 522.

¶7

SHIVAMURTHY S/O CHITHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A GUDDADA GOLLARA HATTI KODIHALLI POST, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 511.

¶8

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

E.PRAKASH S/O EARANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A ALLAPURA - 577 538 JUNJARAGUNTE POST CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶10

S.RAVIKUMAR S/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS GOWRASAMUDRAKAVAL CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577 529.

¶11

K.T.MAHASWAMY S/O THIPPESWAMY

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13906 WP No. 5854 of 2025

¶13

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS KUNABEVU VILLAGE TURUNURU HOBLI CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT -577 517.

¶14

R.JAGADEESH S/O C. RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A NAYAKANAHATTI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGARA BANGALORE-560 027.

¶19

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KSRTC CHITRADURGA DIVISION CHITRADURGA -577 501.

¶20

THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BMTC CENTRAL OFFICER K.H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE -560027.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RENUKA H R.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL DATED 30/01/2025 FILED BY THE

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:13906 WP No. 5854 of 2025

¶26

PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners are employed with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [for short, 'the Transport Corporation' ], and they have filed this petition for directions to the appellate authority with the Transport Corporation to consider and dispose of their appeal filed on 30.01.2025. It is seen from the records that the petitioners have filed writ petition in W.P.No.35910/2024 calling in question the decision to keep them under suspension and serve them with charge sheet, and that this writ petition is disposed of on 22.01.2025 reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appellate authority.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:13906 WP No. 5854 of 2025

¶33

It is in terms of this liberty the

¶34

present appeal is filed, and the petitioners, apart from calling in question the orders keeping them under suspension, have also called in question the charge sheets issued against them. Ms. Renuka H.R., the learned counsel for the respondents, is heard in the light of the petitioners' grievance and the request as stated above.

¶35

Ms. Renuka H.R. submits that her

¶36

instructions are that the appeal is still pending consideration and if reasonable time is granted, the appeal would be disposed of on merits after extending due opportunity. Further, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners cannot sustain their appeal as against the charge sheets in view of this Court's opinion in W.P.No.35910/2024 [ S-KSRTC ] that the correctness of allegations in the charge sheet is a matter for enquiry and the petitioners will have to establish their defense in an inquiry and the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13906 WP No. 5854 of 2025

¶38

Transport Corporation will have the benefit of the decision of this Court in Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [ (2006) 12 SCC 28] .

¶39

This Court, insofar as the decision in

¶40

the pending appeal, must observe that the statement that the appeal will be considered expeditiously and disposed of on merits will suffice, and as regards the maintainability of the appeal as against the charge sheets despite this Court's observation in W.P.No.35910/2024 [ S-KSRTC ], this Court must observe that this is also an aspect that must be considered by the appellate authority. Hence, the following

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition stands disposed of with

¶43

liberty to the petitioners to file a certified

¶44

copy of this order with the appellate authority calling upon such authority to

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:13906 WP No. 5854 of 2025

¶46

¶47