[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Sri M P Nagaprasad on 11 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8265
WP No. 6979 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH 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,
Location: NO 357, 14TH MAIN ROAD,
HIGH COURT SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 570009.
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 ANNX-
D 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.
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. The pleadings would reveal that the respondent-
employee 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
NC: 2026:KHC:8265
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:8265
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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:8265
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.
11. 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.
12. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
13. 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.
NC: 2026:KHC:8265
HC-KAR
14. This being the position, the Court is of the view that
the Tribunal is justified in holding that the charge is not proved.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. This Court does not find any reason to interfere
with the said award as the same is based on acceptable
evidence on record.
NC: 2026:KHC:8265
HC-KAR
18. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed.
19. 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
