Dismissed¶¶50

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Nagabhushan

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2025WP/6262/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Writ Petition No. 6262 of 2020 (L-KSRTC); decided 02-07-2025 by Anant Ramanath Hegde J. KSRTC challenge under Articles 226/227 to Industrial Tribunal, Mysore award dated 29.03.2019 in Ref No.20/2017 setting aside minor penalty of Rs.5,000/- on driver for liquor bottles found in luggage without ticket on Goa-Mysore route. Article 227 perversity review of labour award; Circular dated 16.05.2003 not marked to driver/conductor; no mandate to check all luggage; no liquor found at State border check; petition dismissed; award to be complied with within three months; driver superannuated.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner-Corporation; the Tribunal's award stands, and the Court directed that it be complied with within three months from receipt of the copy of the order. ¶¶50

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Nagabhushan — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner-Corporation; the Tribunal's award stands, and the Court directed that it be complied with within three months from receipt of the copy of the order.

¶¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the reasons assigned by the Industrial Tribunal in setting aside the penalty imposed on the driver are perverse so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶¶50

Court's answer

As an additional circumstance, the Court noted the Tribunal's observation that no such liquor was found in the bus while crossing the State border.

¶¶48

Ratio / Principle

The Circular dated 16.05.2003 did not mandate checking of all luggage carried in the bus; its copies were not marked to the driver and conductor, and it is not forthcoming whether the officers mentioned in the Circular forwarded it to them.

¶¶46

Key takeaways

The reasons assigned by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse so as to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

KSRTC (Divisional Controller, Mysore Rural Division) filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the award dated 29.03.2019 of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Ref No.20/2017, whereby the reference was allowed, the minor penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed on a driver (after a disciplinary enquiry found two rexin bags containing liquor bottles in his Goa-Mysore bus without a luggage ticket) was set aside, and the driver was held entitled to benefits withheld by the Corporation. The Court perused the Corporation's Circular dated 16.05.2003 on prevention of carriage of prohibited articles and found that its copies were not marked to the driver and conductor, that it was not forthcoming whether the officers concerned forwarded it to them, and that it contained no mandate to check all luggage carried in the bus. The Court further noted the Tribunal's observation that no liquor was found in the bus while crossing the State border. Holding that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal could not be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference under Article 227, the Court dismissed the petition and directed compliance with the award within three months from receipt of the copy of the order; the respondent driver has attained superannuation.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23727 WP No. 6262 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 6262 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, MYSORE - 571105, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI NAGABHUSHAN, MAJOR, DRIVER REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY MYSORE JILLA KYGARIKA KARMIKA SANGHA, NO.627, NALA STREET, KR MOHALLA, MYSORE-570015.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P DAROJI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD.29.3.2019 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE IN REF NO.20/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:23727 WP No. 6262 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed assailing the award dated 29.03.2019 in Reference No.20/2017 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Mysore. In terms of the said award, reference is allowed. The penalty imposed by the petitioner/Corporation is set-aside and the award also directs that the first party driver is entitled to all the benefits withheld by the petitioner/Corporation.

¶23

The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent/driver on the premise that the bus which he was driving from Goa to Mysore when reached Mysore was intercepted and two rexin bags containing liquor bottles were found and even the ticket was not issued to the said luggage.

¶24

The respondent driver denied the charges. The disciplinary authority found that driver guilty of misconduct and imposed the minor penalty of Rs.5,000/-.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:23727 WP No. 6262 of 2020

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The respondent raised the Industrial Dispute

¶29

before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter, the parties were permitted to lead evidence on victimization. After assessing the materials on record, the Tribunal concluded that the bus was checked at check post on the way from Mysore to Goa and the liquor bottles were not found in the bus and on that ground, set-aside the penalty. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the award is erroneous and the reason given by the Tribunal is not proper. It is submitted that seizer is very much established and the award is passed based on this surmise.

¶30

Learned counsel would submit that the

¶31

petitioner/Corporation has issued a Circular on 16.05.2003, instructing all the concerned persons as to how prohibited articles are to be prevented from being carried in the bus.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23727 WP No. 6262 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent on the

¶35

other hand would submit that the charges are not established. The Tribunal is justified in setting aside the penalty and it is his submission that the respondent driver

¶36

is not responsible for carrying the articles in the luggage box and it is the responsibility of the conductor to issue ticket for the articles carried in the luggage box and to verify the contents of the bags carried in the luggage box.

¶37

This Court has considered the contentions

¶38

raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶39

This Court has perused the Circular dated 16.05.2003. The Circular mandates the driver and the conductor and other concerned officers of the petitioner/ Corporation to keep a watch on the articles carried in the luggage. And it is also pointed out that in case any suspicion, the bags have to be checked.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:23727 WP No. 6262 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

It is noticed that the said Circular spells out the

¶44

officers of the petitioner/Corporation to whom the Circular is marked for further action. The copies are not marked to the driver and conductor.

¶45

It is not forthcoming as to whether the officers

¶46

mentioned in the said Circular have forwarded to the driver and conductor. Again, by going through the Circular, this Court does not find that there is a mandate to check all the luggages carried in the bus.

¶47

In addition to that, the Tribunal has also noticed

¶48

that no such liquor was found in the bus while crossing the State border.

¶49

Under these circumstances, the reasons

¶50

assigned by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse so as to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:23727 WP No. 6262 of 2020

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54