BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs K.H.KRISHNA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59915
WP No. 682 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010017702022







IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 682 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD
BANGALORE.
BY ITS CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER







(BY SMT. RENUKA H R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

K.H.KRISHNA
DRIVER
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
KSRTC AND BMTC
SAMYUKTHA KARMIKARA SANGHA
TH
NO.23, 4 MAIN ROAD
MATHIKERE EXTENSION
BANGALORE-560056. …RESPONDENT





(BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE
AWARD DATED: 12.11.2019 IN ID NO.121/2012 PASSED BY THE
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59915
WP No. 682 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010017702022


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the Bangalore
Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for short, the
‘Corporation’) under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the award dated
12.11.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru
(for short, the ‘Tribunal’) in I.D. No. 121/2012, whereby
the punishment imposed by the Corporation on the
respondent-workman has been set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent
was working as a driver in the petitioner-Corporation. He
was charge-sheeted in connection with an accident that
occurred on 06.05.2006, and a departmental enquiry was
initiated against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to
conduct the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a
report holding that the charges levelled against the
respondent were not proved. However, the disciplinary
authority, upon considering the materials available on
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59915
WP No. 682 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010017702022


record, passed an order dated 19.10.2010 imposing the
penalty of reduction of basic pay by four annual
increments with cumulative effect.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute in I.D.
No. 121/2012. By the impugned award, the Tribunal set
aside the punishment imposed by the petitioner-
Corporation. Aggrieved by the said award, the Corporation
has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
Corporation raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, the main allegation against the respondent
is that he was driving the bus bearing registration No. KA-
01/F-194 without maintaining the safe distance required
under the applicable regulations and dashed it against the
Scorpio car bearing registration No. KA-25/N-2519, which
was moving ahead of the bus. It is further alleged that the
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59915
WP No. 682 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010017702022


respondent was driving the bus at a high speed and hence,
it collided with the Scorpio car.
(ii) Secondly, a criminal case was registered against
the respondent-workman, and the police registered an FIR
in connection with the accident. This, according to the
learned counsel, clearly establishes that the respondent
was negligent in causing the accident.
(iii) Thirdly, the respondent did not lodge any
complaint against the driver of the Scorpio car. Had the
respondent not been negligent in causing the accident, he
would have lodged a complaint against the driver of the
Scorpio car.
(iv) Fourthly, the Corporation examined its
witnesses, who categorically deposed that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the respondent, as he
had failed to maintain a safe distance between the two
vehicles. Without properly appreciating this aspect, the
Enquiry Officer erroneously held that the charges were not
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59915
WP No. 682 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010017702022


proved. The disciplinary authority, after considering the
relevant aspects of the matter, rightly imposed the penalty
of reduction of basic pay by four annual increments with
cumulative effect.
(v) Fifthly, the Tribunal, without properly
appreciating the evidence of the witnesses examined on
behalf of the Corporation and the FIR registered against
the respondent, allowed the industrial dispute merely by
relying upon the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer,
which had not been accepted by the disciplinary authority.
Hence, the learned counsel sought for allowing the writ
petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-workman raised the following contentions:
(i) Firstly, pursuant to the charge memo issued to
him, the respondent submitted a detailed reply denying
the allegation of negligence and contending that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59915
WP No. 682 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010017702022


the Scorpio car. The Corporation failed to examine any
witness to establish that the respondent was negligent in
causing the accident. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer rightly
held that the charges were not proved and submitted a
report accordingly.
(ii) Secondly, while disagreeing with the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority
imposed the penalty solely on the ground that the
respondent had not lodged any complaint against the
driver of the Scorpio car. Except for this circumstance,
there was no other evidence to establish the charges
levelled against the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal
rightly allowed the industrial dispute. Hence, the learned
counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the writ petition papers.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman
was working as a driver in the petitioner-Corporation. It is
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59915
WP No. 682 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010017702022


also not in dispute that, on 06.05.2006, while the
respondent was working as a contract driver and driving
the bus bearing registration No. KA-01/F-194 from Depot
No. 8 towards Talakadu, the bus collided with a Scorpio
car near Channapatna. It is further not in dispute that the
driver of the Scorpio car lodged FIR against the
respondent.
8. Based on the said FIR, the Corporation initiated
departmental proceedings against the respondent by
issuing a charge memo. The respondent submitted his
reply denying the allegations levelled against him. An
Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry, and
the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the
charges levelled against the respondent were not proved.
Disagreeing with the findings recorded in the enquiry
report, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated
19.10.2010, produced as Annexure-E, imposed the penalty
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59915
WP No. 682 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010017702022


of reduction of basic pay by four annual increments with
cumulative effect.
9. I have perused the penalty order produced as
Annexure-E. The said order does not disclose any
discussion or appreciation of the evidence adduced during
the departmental enquiry. When the disciplinary authority
disagrees with the findings recorded by the Enquiry
Officer, it is required to consider the evidence available on
record, record its reasons for disagreeing with the findings
of the Enquiry Officer, and arrive at its own conclusion
based on the material available on record.
10. In the present case, the disciplinary authority
concluded that the respondent was negligent in causing
the accident solely on the grounds that the bus had
sustained damage in the accident and that the respondent
had not lodged any complaint against the driver of the
Scorpio car. No other evidence has been referred to in
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59915
WP No. 682 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010017702022


support of the conclusion that the respondent was
negligent in causing the accident.
11. In the absence of sufficient evidence to
substantiate the charges levelled against the respondent,
the Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner-Corporation
had failed to prove the charges and allowed the industrial
dispute raised by the respondent-workman.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
finds no error or illegality in the award passed by the
Tribunal warranting interference in the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA


(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE





CM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18