The Divisional Controller Vs Sri M P Nagaprasad — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri M P Nagaprasad — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed; the Industrial Tribunal's award restoring the financial benefits withheld under the penalty stands; the financial benefits payable to the respondent-employee are to be paid within three months, failing which the petitioner-Corporation shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from today till the date of payment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.07.2016 withholding the basic pay by one yearly increment permanently is justified (the point referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication). +1 more

Court's answer

The Industrial Tribunal rightly concluded that the charges were not proved, and the respondent-employee is entitled to the benefits which were withheld in terms of the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Ratio / Principle

The Industrial Tribunal was justified in holding that the charge against the respondent-employee was not proved, since the authority which issued the medical certificates never disowned them and the Hospital authorities confirmed that Dr. J. Inbanathan issued the certificates.

Key takeaways

If the employer-Corporation believed that the certificates at Exs.M4 and M6 were not issued by Dr. J. Inbanathan, it was incumbent upon it to examine Dr. J. Inbanathan to assert that contention; having not done so, the Corporation cannot contend that the certificates are not genuine.ratio¶¶48
The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's award, as it is based on acceptable evidence on record.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (L-KSRTC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Mysuru Rural Division challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru in Reference No.105/2018 dated 16.11.2021, which set aside the penalty of permanent withholding of one yearly increment imposed on its employee after a domestic enquiry into a charge that the medical certificate annexed to his leave application (certifying rest for jaundice) was suspicious — The Hospital authorities confirmed that Dr. J. Inbanathan issued the certificates (Exs.M4 and M6) and the issuing authority never disowned them; the employer, believing the certificates not genuine, failed to examine Dr. J. Inbanathan and therefore could not contend that the certificates were not genuine — The Tribunal rightly held the charge not proved and the employee entitled to the withheld financial benefits — Writ petition dismissed; benefits to be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum till date of payment.

NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022

1 -

HC-KAR

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

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 6979 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, MYSURU RURAL DIVISION, MYSURU, HEREIN REP BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI M P NAGAPRASAD, S/O LT P M PARAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, REP. BY THE PRESIDENT, Digitally KARANTAKA STATE ROAD signed by TRANSPORT COPROATION, PRAMILA G V EMPLOYEES UNION, MYSURU DIVISON, NO 357, 14^TH MAIN ROAD, Location: SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570009. HIGH COURT OF …RESPONDENT KARNATAKA (BY SRI L SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSURR PERTAINING TO REF.NO.105/2018, WHICH HAS CULMINATED IN ITS AWARD DTD 16.11.2021 VIDE ANNXD AND ETC.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This Petition is filed assailing the award in Reference No.105/2018 dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru.

In terms of the said award, Reference is allowed and the financial benefits withheld in terms of the punishment order are directed to be restored in favour of the petitioner.

Point for reference that was placed before the Tribunal for adjudication was to consider as to whether the order dated 13.07.2016 withholding the basic pay by one yearly increment permanently is justified?

The pleadings would reveal that the respondentemployee was subjected to disciplinary enquiry on the premise that the medical certificate annexed along with the leave application is suspicious and based on this, the charge sheet was issued to the respondent-employee. The respondent - employee denied the charges and he participated in the

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022

HC-KAR

domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer found that the charges are proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty by withholding one yearly increment permanently.

The respondent-employee raised the industrial dispute. The enquiry was held to be not fair and proper. However, the parties were permitted to lead evidence. The Tribunal has concluded that the charges are not proved and accordingly has set-aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent-employee filed an application for leave and annexed a medical certificate along with the said application stating that he is suffering from jaundice and the report was secured to ascertain as to whether the medical certificate annexed along with the leave application is genuine or not. The said report is marked at Exhibit.M8.

The medical report would indicate that the respondent-employee has taken treatment as outpatient from Dr.J.Inbanathan in K.R. Hospital, Mysuru. The respondent's name is registered as outpatient on 01.09.2015 and the report

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022

HC-KAR

would also indicate that the card issued to the patient is not maintained by the Hospital and as such there cannot be any authentication of the said card issued to the patient.

From the aforementioned document, it is very much apparent that the respondent-employee has consulted the Doctor on 01.09.2015. The certificate at Exhibit M4 which is annexed along with the application seeking leave is dated 01.09.2015. In the certificate it is mentioned that the respondent-employee needs rest from 01.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 for restoration of his health. The document at Exhibit M6 is the certificate dated 01.10.2015 and it also records that the respondent-employee needs rest from 01.10.2015 to 31.10.2015 for restoration of his health.

Since the Authority which has issued the certificate has not disowned the certificates referred to above, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no case is made out against the respondent-employee.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

Corporation would urge that the Tribunal is not justified in passing the impugned award. It is his contention that evidence

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022

HC-KAR

placed on record would indicate that the respondent-employee did not need that much rest as he consulted the Doctor as an outpatient and there was no need to claim leave for such a long period.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - employee would urge that the certificates produced along with the leave application are said to be genuine and the Doctor has certified that the respondent-employee needed rest for the periods mentioned in the aforementioned certificates.

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

Admittedly, the leave is sanctioned to the respondent-employee for the aforementioned periods mentioned in the certificates. Since the petitioner- Corporation doubted the authenticity of the certificates, report is sought from the Hospital. The Hospital authorities have submitted that Dr.J.Inbanathan has issued the certificates referred to above and it is also stated in the endorsement that the respondent - employee was treated in the hospital as an outpatient.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022

HC-KAR

This being the position, the Court is of the view that the Tribunal is justified in holding that the charge is not proved.

Assuming that the petitioner-Corporation also did not believe in the endorsement issued by the Hospital authorities and if it is the view of the petitioner-Corporation that the certificates at Exs.M4 and M6 are not issued by Dr.J.Inbanathan, it was incumbent upon the petitioner - Corporation to examine Dr.J.Inbanathan to assert its contention that the certificates are not issued by Dr.J.Inbanathan. Having not done, the petitioner - Corporation cannot contend that the certificates are not genuine.

This Court has considered the reasons assigned by the Industrial Tribunal and the Industrial Tribunal has rightly concluded that the charges are not proved and accordingly held that the respondent-employee is entitled to the benefits which are withheld in terms of the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said award as the same is based on acceptable evidence on record.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8265 WP No. 6979 of 2022

HC-KAR

Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed .

The financial benefits payable to the respondent -

employee shall be paid within three months days from today, failing which the petitioner - Corporation shall pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% per annum from today till

date of payment.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34