C BASAVARAJ vs THE MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 68681 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:
SRI. C. BASAVARAJ S/O C BANDEPPA
EX. CONDUCTOR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT. K.V.R. COLONY, HAGARI-BOMMANAHALLI,
DISTRICT BELLARY.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF N.E.K.R.T.C.
BELLARY DIVISION, BELLARY,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE
AWARD PASSED IN K.I.D. NO.43/2002 DTD: 13-01-2009, ON
THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF PRINCIPAL LABOUR
COURT, HUBLI VIDE ANNEXURE-F AS WELL AS THE ORDER
PASSED ON ISSUE NO.1 DATED: 12-02-2004 IN K.I.D.
NO.43/2002 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER OF
PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND
CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING OF THE ORDERS ALLOW THE
DISPUTE RAISED BY THE PETITIONER AND GRANT THE
RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR THE DISPUTE IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.












Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: high
court of
karnataka,
dharwad bench

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioner who was appointed as a conductor in the year
1986, on 12.02.1993 found to have committed certain
irregularities when his bus was intercepted by the checking
officials while plying from Hadagali to Dharmasthala.

2. The charge-sheet dated 19.04.1993 alleging failure on the
part of the petitioner to issue tickets to three passengers
who were travelling from Davanagere to Shimogga at
Stage No.14-29 was issued. It is alleged that petitioner
had also not collected the fare amount from the said
passengers.

3. Oral explanation given by the petitioner was not accepted.
An inquiry by a retired District Judge was ordered to be
conducted on 11.07.1994, which concluded 07.01.2002. In
the said inquiry, petitioner was held guilty resulting in
order dismissing him from service on 18.03.2002. Being
aggrieved, petitioner raised the industrial dispute in KID
No.43/2002.

4. It is the contention of petitioner before the Tribunal that he
had not committed any misconduct and the three
passengers who had boarded the bus were travelling in

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


another defective bus and as such he was under the
impression they had valid tickets. Propriety or otherwise of
the inquiry conducted by the Management was also
challenged as it did not purportedly meet the principles of
natural justice and the requirement of Regulation.

5. Written statement was filed by the Management, justifying
the order of dismissal.

6. Issues were framed. Issue No.1 with regard to validity or
otherwise of the domestic inquiry has been answered in
affirmative. The documents which were marked during the
inquiry as Exs.M.1 to M.105 were taken on record and re-
marked with the consent of the parties.

7. By impugned award dated 13.01.2009, the Tribunal
rejected the dispute raised by the petitioner.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition.

9. Counsel for petitioner taking this Court through the records
submits that:
9.1 The domestic enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer
had not provided opportunity to petitioner. The enquiry
which was commenced on 11.07.1994 went on for almost

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


a decade resulting in the order of dismissal of petitioner
on 18.03.2002. For no fault of the petitioner, the matter
was prolonged. Petitioner was not therefore able to
examine the passengers. The Tribunal had not taken this
aspect of inordinate delay by the Inquiry Officer. There
was a change in the Inquiry Officers. Witnesses were not
examined in time by the Management, which gave
impression to the petitioner that the order of dismissal
would not be accepted due to the delay.

9.2 The order of dismissal was disproportionate to the
allegation of petitioner not issuing the tickets and
collecting the fare from 3 passengers. The reasons
assigned by the petitioner was justifiable, which aspect
has not been appreciated by the Tribunal.

9.3 Counsel for petitioner also brings to the notice of this
Court the daily order sheet maintained by the Inquiry
Officer, more particularly, the order dated 07.01.2002 to
submit that on 07.01.2002 MW.2 was examined and
matter was listed thereafter to 21.01.2002 for filing of
defence statement. Since defence statement was not

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


filed, it was purportedly presumed that the petitioner
herein had no say in the matter and accordingly the case
was posted for report on 31.01.2002 and it was
thereafter taken as enquiry having been completed and a
memo along with copy of the findings on the show-cause
notice along with default history of the petitioner was put
up before the Management for its consideration.

9.4 Thus, referring to the aforesaid stage of the inquiry,
counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the
said closure of inquiry report violates Regulation No.23 of
the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants
(Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (in short, ‘C &
D Regulations’), which mandates that when a disciplinary
authority closes the inquiry, the workman is required to
submit a statement of defence. Evidence led on behalf of
the Corporation shall be produced, who may examine
himself in his own behalf if he so desires. He may also
examine the witnesses on his behalf. He may be cross-
examined and re-examined by the Inquiring Authority. It
is only after closing of the evidence by the Corporation

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


amd employee, the Inquiring Authority treat the inquiry
having been completed.

9.5 Thus, he submits merely because the petitioner had not
submitted his statement of objections, the Inquiry Officer
has closed the inquiry proceedings without complying
with the aforesaid regulations which vitiates the entire
inquiry proceedings.

9.6 He relies upon the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Yellappa vs. Management of
NWKRTC in WP No.68782/2010 dated 21.09.2020
and relying upon paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 of the said order
submits that the case of the petitioner being similarly
situated the relief granted therein may be extended.

10. In response, counsel appearing for the respondent-
Management submits that:

10.1 The issue regarding non-compliance of Regulation No.23
has not been raised before the Tribunal and the same is
raised for the first time.

10.2 That the petitioner-employee was involved in 73 such
instances before the impugned inquiry and thereafter

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


about 7 cases which had been taken into consideration in
the show-cause notice that was issued. That the petitioner
has never submitted any written explanation either to the
articles of charges or during the inquiry report.

10.3 He also points out to the very same order sheet
maintained by the Inquiry Officer. Referring to the
contents of daily order dated 07.01.2002, he submits that
after completion of the evidence of the Management
witnesses, notice was issued to the petitioner herein to file
his written defence statement.

10.4 He also points out to the daily order dated 21.01.2002 and
submits that defence statement was indeed filed by the
petitioner, which was taken on record and it is only
thereafter the matter was takes as case was completed
and the Inquiring Authority had submitted its finding.

10.5 He also relies upon an order passed by another Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Manjunath vs.
Management of NWKRTC in WP No.86207/2013
dated 21.09.2026 and submits that under similar facts
and circumstance of the case, this Court had declined to

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the inquIry
Officer and the Tribunal, resulting in dismissal of service of
the employee. Hence, he submits that petitioner has not
made out any case for interference.

10.6 He also points out that the impugned order is of the year
2002 and the dispute before the Tribunal was raised and
the same was concluded on in 2009 and the petitioner has
not shown any inclination.

10.7 At this length of time, remanding the matter as sought for
by the petitioner on technicalities, in the absence of
petitioner pointing out procedural error causing any
prejudice to him, is unjustified. Therefore, seeks for
dismissal of the petition.

11. Heard. Perused the records.

12. The point that arise for consideration is:
“1. Whether there is non-compliance of Regulation
No.23(18) of the C & D Regulations and if so,
whether the order passed by the Tribunal requires to
be interfered with?”


13. The charge sheet dated 19.04.1993 issued against the
petitioner alleges he neither having issued the tickets nor

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


collecting the fares from three passengers who were
travelling from Davanagere to Shimogga. Admittedly,
petitioner has not given any written explanation. His oral
explanation was not found satisfactory. It is on record that
the inquiry which was constituted on 11.07.1994 was
concluded on 18.03.2002, which went on for about 8
years.

14. The daily order sheet maintained during the inquiry
indicate that the Management witness/MW.2 was
examined on 07.01.2002 and thereafter notice is stated to
have been issued to the petitioner herein calling upon him
to file the defence statement, if any. Notice was issued
fixing the date as 21.01.2002.

15. The order sheet further indicates that as on the said date
defence statement had not been filed. Accordingly, it was
presumed that he had nothing to say and therefore the
matter was posted for submission of report on 31.01.2002.

16. After the said daily order, there is also a reference in the
order sheet which indicates as under:

“Defence statement is enclosed received on 16.50 hours on
21.01.2000”.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011




17. The order sheet thereafter indicates as under:

“As the case is completed and the Inquiring Authority has
submitted his findings copy. A memo copy along with copy
of the findings and show-cause notice along with default
history sheet is put up for your kind perusal and signature
please”.


18. What emanates from the aforesaid notings in the daily
order sheet is that MW.2 was examined on 07.01.2002, on
which date petitioner was absent and the notice has been
issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his defence
statement, if any, and the matter was listed on
21.01.2002. On which date, since the defence statement
was not filed, it was presumed that petitioner had no
defence statement to be filed and accordingly, inquiry was
closed and matter was posted for submission of report on
31.01.2002.

19. It appears that on the very same day i.e. on 31.01.2002,
petitioner seemed to have submitted the defence
statement.

20. Regulation No.23(16, 17, 18) read as under:

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


“23. Procedure for imposing major penalties:-
16) When the case of the Disciplinary Authority is
closed, the corporation servant shall be required to state
his defense, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the
defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the
Corporation servant shall be required to sign the record. In
either case a copy of the statement of defence shall be
given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed.
(17) The evidence on behalf of the Corporation servant
shall then be produced. The Corporation servant may
examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The
witnesses produced by the Corporation servant shall then
be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-
examination and examination by the Inquiring Authority
according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for
the Disciplinary Authority.
(18) The Inquiring Authority, may, after the Corporation
servant closes his case, and shall, if the Corporation
servant has not examined himself, generally question him
on the circumstances, appearing against him in the
evidence for the purpose of enabling the Corporation
servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the
evidence against him.”


21. Perusal of the aforesaid regulations indicate that upon
submission of case by the Management, the employee is
required to state his defence orally or in writing.
Thereafter, evidence of the employee is required to be
recorded including examination, cross-examination and re-
examination of the witnesses sought to be produced by the
employee. It is thereafter the Inquiring Authority is
required to close the case.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011



22. In the instant case as noted above, from the order sheet,
two scenarios have emerged; firstly non-filing of the
defence statement by the petitioner, secondly, purported
submission of the written submission at 16.50 hours on
the said date. In either of the scenarios, the Inquiry Officer
ought to have provided an opportunity to petitioner to
examine any of the witnesses as contemplated under
Regulation No.23(17 and 18).

23. Admittedly, this has not been done. Though vehement
submission is made by the counsel for Corporation that
non-compliance of this requirement has not caused any
prejudice to the petitioner and such procedural lapse
cannot go to the root of the matter, this Court is not
persuaded to accept this aspect, more particularly, when
the inquiry was constituted on 11.07.1994, the same has
been prolonged for an inordinate period of over 8 years
with change of the Inquiry Officers in between. All that has
happened in 8 years is examination of only 2 witnesses by
the Management and it is in the last date the inquiry has

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


been closed abruptly presuming petitioner had nothing to
say in the matter merely because of his absence.

24. When the report has recommended for his dismissal from
his service for the allegation of he not having issued tickets
for 3 passengers and not collecting the fares, therefore it
cannot be heard to say that this so-called procedural non-
compliance has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner.
This has taken away his employment and his livelihood.
The Tribunal has lost sight of this aspect of the matter.

25. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Yellappa (supra), at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 has held as
under:
“8. In terms of Regulation 23 of the C & D Regulations
and more particularly sub-regulations 16, 17 and 18,
once a delinquent officer like the petitioner were to
submit his written statement, the matter is required to
be posted for recordal of evidence of the delinquent
officer like the petitioner, if he so prefers. This
opportunity has not been provided by the Enquiry Officer
and though the defence statement is on record, the
finding has been rendered without affording the
opportunity, which apart from violation of the above
Regulation, is also violation of principles of natural
justice.
9. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the
Enquiry has not been conducted in proper and required
manner and adequate opportunity has not been provided
to the delinquent officer like the petitioner.”

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011




26. Reliance placed by the counsel for respondent-
Management in the case of Manjunath (supra) is of no
avail inasmuch as the requirement of compliance to
Regulation No.23(18) has not been subject matter of the
said writ petition.

27. It is a different aspect of the matter that the petitioner
now has attained superannuation and there may be a
delay in the event of remanding the matter for fresh
consideration. But the fact remains, right of livelihood
which the petitioner otherwise entitled to has been
deprived by non-compliance of the mandatory requirement
of petitioner being provided opportunity to present his
case.

28. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate,
in the interest of justice, to allow the petition.

29. Hence, the following:
ORDER

i) Petition is allowed .

ii) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is quashed
and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to examine

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16106
WP No. 68681 of 2011


CNR: KAHC020274262011


the aforesaid aspect of the matter by affording
opportunity to the parties and pass an appropriate
order within an outer limit of 6 months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.

iii) Since the parties are represented by counsel, they shall
appear before the Tribunal on 27.10.2026 .

Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE

SH
CT:CNB
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1