The Divisional Controller v. Sri Ramanna R

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. 35520 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHAMARAJANAGARA DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGARA, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. READ, SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU-500 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1SRI. RAMANNA R., S/O. LATE RANGAIAH, AGE MAJOR, JUNIOR ASSISTANT-CUM-DATE ENTRY OPERATOR, K.S.R.T.C., CHAMARAJANAGARA DIVISION, R/O. VENKATAYYANA CHATRA VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 571 127.

¶2THE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2016 NO.55, II FLOOR, ABHAYA SANKEERNA,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD BUILDING, RESALDAR ROAD, (PLATFORM ROAD), SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRA V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ESWARAPPA B.J., AGA FOR R2)

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

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

ORAL ORDER

Sri. B. L. Sanjeev, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Eswarappa. B. J., Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 2, appeared in person.

Smt. Jayna Kothari, Senior Counsel, on behalf of Sri. Naveen Chandra. V., for Respondent No. 1, appeared through video conferencing.

¶2This petition is filed seeking the following relief: i. Call for records of proceedings of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the second respondent herein, pertaining to Case No.AmAaNi:V-2:21:2024-25/559. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the interim order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) act, 1995, the second respondent herein, in Case No.AmAaNi:V-2:21:2024-25/559 vide Annexure-D. iii. Grant such other reliefs that may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court, under facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶3Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. The petitioner's counsel states that, as an employee of the Corporation, a charge sheet was issued to the first respondent due to alleged misconduct. Instead of defending himself, first respondent

respondent, the Commissioner, and secured a stay on the inquiry proceedings. It is strongly argued that the initiation of proceedings before respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 is not valid. Consequently, counsel requests that the proceedings begun by respondent No.1 before respondent No.2 be quashed. Senior counsel for respondent No.1 strongly argues that the first respondent has a 70% disability, backed by the medical board's certificate at Annexure-R1. She claims that the first respondent faced discrimination, which led him to seek relief from the Commissioner. Therefore, senior counsel contends that the petition lacks merit and should be dismissed.

¶4Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

¶5It is undisputed that the first respondent is an employee of the Corporation and received a charge sheet on

28.12.2021. Records show that instead of filing a defence and proving innocence by replying to the charge sheet, he improperly respondent, Commissioner, and initiated proceedings. I believe the first

respondent should not have respondent. The correct procedure was to submit a defence reply to the charge sheet. Therefore, the proceedings initiated before respondent No.2 are legally invalid and should be quashed.

¶6The writ of certiorari is issued. The interim order dated 20.08.2024, issued by the second respondent, as shown in Annexure-D, is quashed. It is unnecessary to state that the Corporation may continue to act in this matter. All contentions remain open. Because the Writ Petition has been disposed of, any interim order granted is now discharged, and pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of.

SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48