Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Sri J Ramulu on 5 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44629-DB
WA No. 3256 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 3256 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
K.S.R.T.C., DAVANAGERE DIVISION
DAVANAGERE - 577 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY:
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER
K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES
K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR
Digitally
signed by K G BANGALORE-560 027
RENUKAMBA
Location:
HIGH COURT ...APPELLANT
OF (BY SRI. B S SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR
KARNATAKA
SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI J RAMULU
S/O ANJINAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44629-DB
WA No. 3256 of 2019
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
KSRTC BUS DRIVER, DAVANAGERE DEPOT,
DAVANAGERE DIVISION
DAVANAGERE-577 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M T JAGAN MOHAN, ADV. FOR
CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT IN CP NO.783/2019)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 18/07/2019
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP NO.16342/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
WP NO.16342/2018.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant
is that the Disciplinary Authority who is the appellant, while
NC: 2025:KHC:44629-DB
HC-KAR
exercising the powers under the amended Regulation of KSRTC
Employees (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971 imposed
the penalty of reduction in basic pay of the respondent - driver
to the minimum of basic pay of the drivers' post and directed to
treat the suspension period as not on duty. It is contented that
an enquiry report and the findings therein were considered by
the Disciplinary Authority who also considered the FIR lodged
by the Department and found that the occurrence of the
accident was proved and from the spot panchanama, the
occurrence of the incident was found. The allegation against the
respondent was that due to the negligence of the respondent in
driving the bus inside the depot, he dashed the bus against two
technical staffs, due to which one of them sustained serious
injuries and succumbed in the hospital, while the other staff
was under treatment for injuries to his left leg and arms.
Therefore, the charge against the driver was found to have
been correctly proved and accordingly, the order imposing
penalty was passed.
3. An industrial dispute was raised by the respondent
workmen, which came to be referred by the State Government
NC: 2025:KHC:44629-DB
HC-KAR
and was registered as ID No.192/2012 before the Industrial
Tribunal, Hubballi. After considering the record, the Tribunal
held that the issue as to the fairness of domestic enquiry
conducted had been held in the affirmative holding that the
domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner.
The perversity or otherwise and an illegality, if any, was
verified by the Tribunal and it came to the conclusion that the
enquiry finding in no way could be termed as either perverse or
illegal. Accordingly, the reference was rejected and the order of
punishment dated 22.05.2009 passed by the appellant -
Disciplinary Authority was confirmed.
4. In the writ petition filed before this Court
challenging the award, the learned Judge allowed the writ
petition of the respondent holding that the respondent was
acquitted in the criminal proceedings. Moreover, it was
observed that there was no iota of evidence to contend that
there is negligence on part of the petitioner - respondent in
causing the accident, which resulted in death of a staff of the
KSRTC. The learned Judge went on to hold that in the absence
of corroborative evidence and any eyewitness, one could not
NC: 2025:KHC:44629-DB
HC-KAR
draw inference that there was a negligence on the part of the
petitioner - respondent in causing accident. Accordingly, the
award dated 02.04.2016 was set aside and the order of penalty
imposed by the appellant was also set aside. The appellant -
respondent was directed to calculate arrears of pay and all
monetary benefits and the same was directed to be released
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
orders, failing which, the petitioner - respondent would be
entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has emphasized
that there was no evidence on record that the accident was
caused by the respondent and therefore, the learned single
Judge was justified in passing the order impugned. It is further
urged that the respondent has retired from service and in view
of the facts and circumstances, this writ appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
6. However, having perused the record and the order
of the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that
in exercise of writ jurisdiction, an award made by the Industrial
NC: 2025:KHC:44629-DB
HC-KAR
Tribunal cannot be substituted by an order in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. While exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a Court of
appeal. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment dated
18.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.16342/2018 deserves to be set aside and is
accordingly, set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent
has not demonstrated his submissions. The award of the
Industrial Tribunal is upheld. The appeal is therefore allowed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
KG
