Shankarappa M A v. The Chief Executive Engineer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 5454 OF 2022 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:

SHANKARAPPA M.A., S/O. ANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, ESTABLISHMENT SUPERVISOR, K.S.R.T.C., MALUR DEPOT, MALUR, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027.

¶2DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER

Sri. Shekar L., counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. H. R. Renuka., counsel for respondents 1 and 2, appeared in person.

¶2This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: a) Issue a writ or order in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated:11.09.2020 as per Annexure-A passed by the Second Respondent and also the order dated:09.08.2021 as per Annexure-B passed by the First Respondent.

b) Issue a writ or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents Corporation to pay all consequential benefits arising out of quashing the impugned orders under Annexures-A and B by treating the suspension period as on duty; and

c) Pass such other order as to costs as this Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶3Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶4It is sufficient to mention that the petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct, but the inquiry officer found the charges unproved. The matter then reached the disciplinary authority, which issued a show cause notice on

01.07.2020 claiming that the petitioner admitted the charges. This show cause notice, included with the writ petition as Annexure-F, appears to suggest that the petitioner admitted the charges during the inquiry. However, this is not accurate. The petitioner denied the charges, and the inquiry officer's report in Annexure-A clearly shows that the charges were not established. Therefore, assuming that the petitioner admitted the charges and proceeding further based on that is unjustified. For these reasons, the petition should be allowed.

¶5The writ of certiorari is ordered. The impugned order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Second Respondent vide Annexure-A, and the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by the First Respondent vide Annexure-B, are quashed.

¶6Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.

Since the writ petition has been disposed of, any interim order previously granted by this Court is now discharged. Additionally, any pending interlocutory applications and interim directions are considered resolved.

SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38