Dismissed¶38

Jayaramappa v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026WP/12801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC driver dismissal confirmed for unauthorised absence of 525 days from 24.03.2016; Labour Court award upheld; proportionality of punishment rejected as no identical lenient case shown; ill-health plea unsupported by medical evidence; no leave application before absence; past record of 16 penalties; Section 10(1)(c)(d) Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Article 227 review of labour court award; direction to pay service benefits within 90 days; WP No. 12801 of 2022 (L-KSRTC), Karnataka High Court, 11.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned award confirming dismissal. However, if service benefits payable to the petitioner consequent to the dismissal were not paid, they were directed to be paid within 90 days from receipt of the certified copy of the order. ¶38

Jayaramappa Vs the Divisional Controller — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the award dated 01.01.2022 in I.D. Reference No.09/2019, confirming the petitioner's dismissal from service, calls for interference in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. +2 more

¶19

Court's answer

As found by the Domestic Disciplinary Authority and the Labour Court, the petitioner did not report to duty after 24.03.2016 till the date of dismissal.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner had not filed any application seeking leave before remaining absent with effect from 24.03.2016.

¶25

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contention that he did not report to duty on account of ill-health was not accepted, as no doctor's evidence was led to support it.ratio¶26
No case was made out to interfere with the Labour Court's finding confirming the order of dismissal, there being no such identical case of lenient treatment shown.ratio¶33
The writ petition was dismissed as no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Anant Ramanath Hegde J.) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the award dated 01.01.2022 of the Principal District Court, Chikkaballapur in I.D. Reference No.09/2019, by which the KSRTC driver's claim under Section 10(1)(c)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected and his dismissal dated 01.09.2017 was confirmed. The driver had remained unauthorisedly absent for 525 days from 24.03.2016 until dismissal; the domestic inquiry was held fair and proper; he filed no leave application before remaining absent; his ill-health plea failed for want of doctor's evidence; and the enquiry report showed penalties imposed on 16 earlier occasions. Rejecting the contention that dismissal was disproportionate and that the Corporation had taken a lenient view in similar cases, the Court held there was no such identical case and declined to interfere under Article 227. Service benefits, if unpaid consequent to dismissal, were directed to be paid within 90 days from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8266 WP No. 12801 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 12801 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JAYARAMAPPA, S/O SRI GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DRIVER K C NO.1090, DODDABALLAPUR DEPOT, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, R/AT LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE, YELDUR POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563138.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI V S NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, Digitally CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, signed by PRAMILA G VCHIKKABALLAPURA-562101. …RESPONDENT Location: (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) HIGH COURT OF THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 KARNATAKAAND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT LAND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN I.D.REF.NO.9/2019 QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DTD 01.01.2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT LAND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN I.D.REF.NO.9/2019, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-H BY WHICH THE PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE WAS CONFIRMED AND THE CLAIM OF THE

¶12

¶13

NC: 2026:KHC:8266 WP No. 12801 of 2022

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

PETITIONER WAS REJECTED WHICH IS UNSUSTAINABLE, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT 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

ORAL ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed assailing the award dated 01.01.2022 in I.D. Reference No.09/2019 on the file of Principal District Court, Chikkaballapur. The petitioner's claim under Section 10(1)(c)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is rejected in terms of the impugned award. Consequently, the order of dismissal dated 01.09.2017 is confirmed.

¶20

The petitioner who was the employee of the respondent -Corporation was subjected to domestic enquiry on the charges of unauthorised absence of 525 days. Domestic Enquiry is initiated on the charge that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 24.03.2016. It is the finding of the Domestic Disciplinary Authority as well as the Labour Court that the petitioner did not report to duty after 24.03.2016 till the date of dismissal pursuant to the domestic enquiry.

¶21

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8266 WP No. 12801 of 2022

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of

¶24

dismissal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The Court held that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper. Thereafter, the parties were permitted to lead evidence on the plea of victimisation. Both the parties led evidence in support of their claim.

¶25

It is seen from the records that, the petitioner did not report to duty from 24.03.2016 onwards till the date of his dismissal. It is seen that before remaining absent with effect from 24.03.2016 the petitioner has not filed any application seeking leave. It appears that he has filed an application after remaining absent and same was not approved and the petitioner did not report to duty.

¶26

The petitioner raised a contention that he was not keeping well and on account of his ill-health, he was not in a position to report to duty. Said contention is not accepted. It is noticed that the Doctor's evidence is not led on behalf of the petitioner to support his contention that he was not keeping well.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:8266 WP No. 12801 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

The respondent-Corporation before the Labour

¶31

Court has also produced the history sheet relating to the past misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It is noticed from the enquiry report that the petitioner was imposed penalty on 16 occasions earlier.

¶32

After considering the materials on record, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is justified and there is no reason to interfere with the said penalty. While passing the order, the Labour Court has taken into account the fact that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 24.03.2016 till the date of punishment i.e., 01.09.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently urge that penalty of

¶33

dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and to submitted that in similar circumstances, the respondentCorporation has taken a lenient view. The Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the finding of the Labour Court which has confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as there is no such identical case.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:8266 WP No. 12801 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is

¶38

dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner-employee at this juncture would submit that service benefits payable to the petitioner are not paid consequent to the order of dismissal. If that is the case, the service benefits shall be paid to the petitioner-employee within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶40

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶41

GVP

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Jayaramappa v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaramappa v. the Divisional Controller

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

Ch. Ramachandri Vs the Central Silk Board

Shiv Singh Kandari Vs the Central Silk Board

Sri. Ramesh Lal Vs Central Silk Board

Smt. Sowjanya N S Vs the State of Karnataka

Mariswamy Gowda B G., Vs the Divisional Controller

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri M P Nagaprasad