Dismissed¶44

Chief Divisional Mechanical Engineer Ksrtc v. Sri Padmanabha Achary

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2025WP/9039/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, Bengaluru; Justice Jyoti M; order dated 19-11-2025; WP No. 9039 of 2021 (L-KSRTC); KSRTC v. Padmanabha Achary; Charge Man; disciplinary proceedings; domestic inquiry; I.D.No.14/2018; Industrial Tribunal award dated 15.02.2020; punishment set aside; negligent supervision; welding fire in Volvo bus F-8428; Ex.M-9 instruction not to weld; employer failed to prove causal link between supervisory lapse and loss; reduction of basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed, pending interlocutory applications were disposed of, and any interim direction stands discharged, leaving the Tribunal's award setting aside the punishment intact. ¶44

Chief Divisional Mechanical Engineer Ksrtc Vs Sri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47622 WP No. 9039 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 9039 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHIEF DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU - 560027.

¶9

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MANGALURU DIVISION, MANGALURU - 575001.

¶10

THE PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI PADMANABHA ACHARY, AGE MAJOR, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION(AITUC) 2^ND FLOOR, KSRTC BUS STAND, BEJAI, MANGALURU - 575002.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:47622 WP No. 9039 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Sri.Sreenivas, counsel on behalf of Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, for the petitioners and Sri. V.S. Naik, counsel for the respondent, have appeared in person.

¶25

2. The petition averments are these:

¶26

The respondent was working as a Charge Man in the establishment of the Corporation. On the 13^th day of November 2011, he was on duty in the Divisional Workshop as a Charge Man and was supervising the work of mechanics as well as the Volvo Bus bearing No.F-8428 by the mechanical workman of Kundapura Depot. It was alleged that due to his careless supervision, the welding rays of the welding machine caused a fire in the bus and the entire inner portion of the bus was burnt, and the bus bearing No.2464 was damaged. It is stated that five ventilation glasses and six window glasses were broken, the roof of the shed, the wall and the clock were burnt.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:47622 WP No. 9039 of 2021

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

It is said that the Corporation incurred a loss to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs only).

¶31

The respondent came under disciplinary proceedings, and the inquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice. The inquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority, considering the seriousness of the charges proved in the inquiry, imposed a minor punishment, reducing the basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect.

¶32

The respondent raised a dispute in I.D.No.14/2018, and the preliminary issue about the domestic inquiry was answered in the affirmative. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 15.02.2020 allowed the reference and set aside the order of punishment. The corporation has assailed the award in the captioned writ petition on several grounds, as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶33

Counsel appearing for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers and the records with care.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:47622 WP No. 9039 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The point for consideration is whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal requires interference.

¶38

The facts are sufficiently said and do not require repetition. The issue concerns the alleged misconduct of the supervisor. The bus bearing No. F-8428 was being repaired by technical staff. It has been argued on behalf of the Corporation that there was a breach of the duty of care in supervisory responsibilities, and the Corporation incurred losses as a result of negligent supervision by the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent specifically contended that technical personnel were instructed not to carry out welding work.

¶39

Ex.M-9 is the reply submitted by the first party. A perusal of the same shows that the respondent had clearly instructed the technical staff not to carry out welding work. Despite the instructions, the technical staff carried out the welding work and caused loss to the corporation. In my view, the Corporation has failed to substantiate that the financial losses sustained by the Corporation are a direct consequence of a breach of the duty of care in supervisory responsibilities by the respondent. Taking note of the material evidence on record,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:47622 WP No. 9039 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the Tribunal rightly set aside the order of punishment. I find no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly it is dismissed .

¶44

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

¶45

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶46

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Chief Divisional Mechanical Engineer Ksrtc v. Sri Padmanabha Achary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Divisional Mechanical Engineer Ksrtc v. Sri Padmanabha Achary

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

Sri Harish Chander Vs Central Silk Board

Sri. C Y Govindaraju Vs the Management of

The Oxford Educational Institutions, Vs Controlling Authority

Shivanna. K Vs Bengaluru Metropolitian Transport Corporation

Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs P Lakshminarayana

Karnataka State Road Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner