Karnataka High Court
Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

An unfair departmental inquiry cannot sustain punishment without independent proof of the charge.

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC vs SRI K H PREMKUMAR

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 23, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
An unfair departmental inquiry cannot sustain punishment without independent proof of the charge.. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC vs SRI K H PREMKUMAR. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The respondent, a KSRTC conductor, was charged with failing to collect a fare of Rs.110 and issue a ticket to a passenger travelling from the State Border to Belgaum.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, 6–7

He said he believed the passenger, who was wearing a uniform, was a KSRTC employee.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, 6–7

Following a departmental enquiry, KSRTC imposed a penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages to the minimum scale with cumulative effect.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, 6–7

The Industrial Tribunal set aside the penalty, finding the enquiry unfair and noting that KSRTC had not independently proved the charge.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, 6–7

KSRTC challenged the Tribunal’s award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Source reference: pp. 3–4, 6–7
02

Issues

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in setting aside the penalty despite KSRTC’s contention that the conductor had admitted failing to collect the fare and issue a ticket.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, 7

2. Whether the Tribunal’s award disclosed an error or illegality warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Source reference: p. 8
03

Law Applied

The Court considered its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the evidentiary requirements arising where a departmental enquiry is found unfair: the employer must prove the charge independently, and the failure to examine material witnesses or produce supporting evidence may leave the charge unsubstantiated.

Source reference: pp. 6–8

No specific statute or precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal had found the enquiry unfair, requiring KSRTC to prove the charge independently.

Source reference: pp. 6–8

KSRTC did not examine the checking officials, whom the Court regarded as the best witnesses, or the passenger; nor did it obtain the passenger’s address or produce supporting documents to establish that the conductor knowingly allowed a non-employee to travel without a ticket.

Source reference: pp. 6–8

In light of the conductor’s explanation that he believed the uniformed passenger was a KSRTC employee, the Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment.

Source reference: pp. 6–8
05

Holding

The Court held that the Tribunal’s award contained no error or illegality warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227.

It dismissed KSRTC’s writ petition, leaving in force the award setting aside the penalty.

Source reference: p. 8
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTCvsSRI K H PREMKUMAR

Karnataka High Court · September 23, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment