CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 08 KAR CK 2217

Sri. M.P.Prabhudas vs Board Of Directors, K.S.R.T.C. & Anr.

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 5 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jyoti M, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
WRIT PETITION NO. 25131 OF 2017 (S-KSRTC)
Download PDFDownload Court FileAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 460 words

Sri.G.S.Naveen Kumar, counsel on behalf of Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondents, appeared in person.

2.

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

(a)

Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No.KST/CO/DIS/D-2/D1160/67/16-17; dated 28.06.2016, passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-G insofar as relates to the petitioner to the writ petition under the facts and circumstances of this case.

(b)

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing the respondent to restore the increments of the petitioner with all consequential monetary benefits under the facts and circumstances of this case.

(c)

Issue any appropriate writ, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to accord under the facts and circumstances of this case.

3.

The short facts are these:

The petitioner, a former employee of the Corporation with 33 years of service in various roles, retired as Chief Traffic Manager. During his tenure, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and other officials based on a report from the Deputy Chief Security and Vigilance Officer dated 31.12.2014. The respondent No.2 accused the petitioner of advising the Divisional Controller of Kempegowda Bus Station, Bengaluru, to follow Circular No.1193 of 2014 instead of GSO No.497 of 2001 regarding hoardings at Devanahalli trumpet bus station, through tendering, allegedly causing financial loss. The petitioner replied to the charges and denied them. An enquiry officer found the charges proved, leading respondent No.2 to impose a punishment order on 28.06.2016. The petitioner, dissatisfied with this order, has challenged it in this Court through a writ petition on multiple grounds as detailed in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

4.

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

5.

The issue is limited to the petitioner's advice to his higher officials to follow Circular No.497 of 2001 instead of Circular No.1193 of 2014.

6.

The facts are already clearly stated and do not need to be repeated. The Court acknowledges that the petitioner should have followed Circular No.497 of 2001 by advising his officials to tender for the hoardings at the Devanahalli trumpet bus station near Bengaluru International Airport. Instead, he misguidedly directed them to adhere to Circular No. 1193 of 2014, as if no competitors required a tender process. This misconduct led to disciplinary action and a punishment order. As an official of the Corporation, he was responsible for properly guiding his superiors. By giving incorrect advice, he caused the Corporation financial loss. Consequently, the punishment imposed is justified, and there are no reasons to overturn it. The writ petition is dismissed.

Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.