Karnataka High Court
Raju S/O Bhimrao Kangale vs The Divisional Controller Nekrtc on 4 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097
WP No. 202609 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 202609 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
RAJU S/O BHIMRAO KANGALE,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DISMISSED CONDUCTOR,
R/O KABBUR, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELGAUM,
AT PRESENT RAJAJI NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC VIJAYAPUR DIVISION,
Digitally signed ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101.
by NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR SETTING ASIDE THE
AWARD OF LABOUR COURT VIJAYAPUR PASSED IN
REF.NO.5/15 DATED 23.3.2016 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A,
CONSEQUENTLY ORDER FOR HIS REINSTATEMENT OF THE
PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES,
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS. B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AS DEEMED
FIT BY THE HON'BLE COURT.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097
WP No. 202609 of 2016
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 S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the award of the Labour Court, Vijaypura, passed in Reference No.5/2015 dated 23.03.2016 vide Annexure-A and consequently, reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner, who was working as a conductor in the respondent-corporation was dismissed from service by order dated 27.05.2014 on the alleged misconduct of contesting the MLA election held in the month of May 2013 without seeking prior permission from the Management and also remaining unauthorisedly absent for the period from 27.01.2013 to 02.05.2013. Challenging the said -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR order of dismissal from service dated 27.05.2014, petitioner had filed a claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the jurisdictional Labour Court at Vijayapura, which was dismissed vide the order impugned. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a resignation letter on 19.04.2013, which was not at all considered. He submits that two other employees of the respondent-corporation namely Somshekhar Sajjan and Bhimaraj also had contested in MLA election earlier and no action was taken against them. He submits that for the misconduct of unauthorised absence, petitioner ought not to have been terminated from service.
5. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0118/2013 and also -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of B. Nagaraju v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. reported in MANU/KA/0114/1993.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that petitioner is a person with history of misconduct and as many as 6 cases were registered against him earlier. In the present case the petitioner is not only guilty of unauthorised absent, but he also had contested the general elections as a candidate from a political party, which is a misconduct, as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971. The Labour Court was therefore justified in confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Management. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. In the present case, domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner on the charges of contesting the -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR MLA election without seeking permission of the management and also remaining unauthorisedly absent for the period from 27.01.2013 to 02.05.2013. According to the petitioner, he had submitted a resignation letter on 19.04.2013. Nomination was filed by the petitioner for contesting the election on 17.04.2013 itself. The resignation letter dated 19.04.2013 was submitted by the petitioner to the Depot Manager and not to the Divisional Controller of respondent-corporation, who is the competent authority. Since, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent, Divisional Controller had directed the Security Officer to investigate. In the report, which was filed subsequently by the Security Officer, it was mentioned that petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for period from 27.01.2013 to 02.05.2013 and he also had filed nomination on 17.04.2013 for contesting the MLA election from National Congress Party. Based on the report of the Security Officer, the Articles of Charges was issued against the petitioner, which contained the allegation of -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR unauthorised absence and also contesting the general election without prior permission of the corporation or without submitting resignation to his post. In the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty. The Labour Court has held that the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner was just and proper.
8. Material on record would go to show that call letter was issued to the petitioner on 26.02.2013 as per Exhibit-R2. The investigation report submitted by the Security Officer is at Exhibit-R15, which clearly states that petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 27.01.2013 to 02.05.2013 and that he had filed nomination paper to contest the general election on 17.04.2013. The Articles of Charges issued against the petitioner on the aforesaid allegations is produced at Exhibit-R18 before the Labour Court. In his reply at Exhibit-R20, petitioner has mentioned that since he had submitted a conditional resignation letter, he was not guilty of alleged misconduct. Exhibit-R8 to 13 relates to the election proceedings, which -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR would clearly indicate that petitioner had submitted his nomination to contest the election from National Congress Party on 17.04.2013. Exhibit-R13 is the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with his nomination paper, wherein he had declared that he had voluntarily retired from service. The resignation forwarded by the petitioner was not at all acted upon since the same was submitted to the Depot Manager instead of the Divisional Controller, who is the competent authority.
9. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had applied for leave. Therefore, the unauthorised absence of the petitioner remained unexplained. Regulation-9 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 reads as follows:
"9. Taking part in politics and elections: -
1) No Corporation servant shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organization which takes part in politics nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR of or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.
2) It shall be the duty of every Corporation servant to endeavor to prevent any member of his family from taking part in, subscribing in aid of or assisting in any other manner any movement or activity which is, or tends directly or indirectly to be, subversive of the Government as by law established and where a Corporation servant is unable to prevent a member of his family from taking part in, or subscribing in aid of or assisting in any other manner, any such movement or activity, he shall make a report to that effect to the Corporation.
3) If any question arises whether a party is a political party or whether any organization take part in politics or whether any movement or activity falls within the scope of Sub-Regulation (2), the decision of the Corporation thereon shall be final.
4) No Corporation servant shall canvass or otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any Legislature or local Authority:
Provided that --9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR
i) A Corporation servant qualified to vote at such election may exercise his right to vote but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted.
ii) A Corporation servant shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this Sub-
Regulation by reason only that he assists in the conduct of an election in the due performance of a duty imposed on him by or under any law for the time being in force.
Explanation- The display by a Corporation servant on his person, vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his influence in connection with an election within the meaning of the Sub-Regulation.
5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Regulations, the Supervisory cadre of employees and above shall not associate themselves and or be Members of any Trade Union and or Federation and or Association formed by the workers. They shall also not associate with or be members of any Trade Union and or Federation and or Association formed by any other Class of Employees in the Corporation.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR For the purpose of this Regulation, the Supervisory category shall include:
1. Traffic Inspector
2. Chargeman
3. Chargeman (Printing)
4. Divisional Security Inspector
5. Inspector of Accounts
6. Junior Engineer
7. Draughtsman
8. Stenographer(Senior)
9. Store Keeper
10. Supervisor(Accounts).
11. Supervisor(Administration)
12. Supervisor(Statistical)
13. Supervisor(Labour)
14. Assistant Traffic Superintendent
15. Assistant Works Superintendent
16. Supervisor (Electrical)
17. Technical Superintendent
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR
18. Personal Assistant
19. Stores Superintendent
20. Superintendent (Administration)
21. Superintendent (Accounts)
22. Superintendent (Statistical)
23. Assistant Engineer
24. Head Artisan
25. Assistant Traffic Inspector and any other category that may be included in future in the Supervisory category.
6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Regulations, the Security Personnel shall not associate themselves and or be members of any Trade Union and or Federation and or Association formed by the workers. They shall also not associate with or be members of any Trade Union and or Federation and or Association formed by any other Class of employees in the Corporation. For the purpose of this Regulation, Security Personnel shall include:
1. Divisional Security Inspector
2. Assistant Security Inspector
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR
3. Watch and Ward Inspector
4. Security Havildar
5. Security Head Guard
6. Security Guard and any other category that may be included in future in the Security Department."
10. The plain reading of the above provision of law makes it very clear that petitioner who was in service as a conductor of respondent-corporation could not have associated himself with a political party and contested the elections and the said act breaches the aforesaid regulations and therefore, the same amounts to misconduct. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a person with history of misconduct and learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as many as 6 cases of misconduct were registered against the petitioner earlier.
11. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labor Court was fully justified in confirming the order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the respondent-
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR Management, dismissing the petitioner from service. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced the order passed in WP No.82935/2009 by this Court, dated 03.12.2009, which would go to show that Bhimaraj, who was working as a conductor in respondent-corporation had submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the corporation and thereafter, he had contested for election. The same is not the situation in the present case. Insofar as, another employee Somshekhar Sajjan is concerned, he allegedly had contested general elections in the year 1995, but there is no material to show that he was unauthorisedly absent. Under the circumstances merely for the reason that no action was taken against him, it cannot be said that the action taken against the petitioner, who has subsequently contested the election in the year 2013, is bad in law. The regulations governing the service condition of the petitioner provides that the petitioner cannot associate himself with a political party and contest elections.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2097 WP No. 202609 of 2016 HC-KAR
12. In the case of Rajendra Yadav (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that persons who have been found guilty are required to be treated equally and there cannot be any discrimination while imposing punishment on them. The said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of B. Nagaraju (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that disciplinary authority was not justified in taking into consideration the past record of misconduct, without affording opportunity to the petitioner to explain the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not granted opportunity to explain about his past misconduct. Under the circumstances, even the judgment in case of B. Nagaraju (supra) would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45