Karnataka High Court
Sri Shankarappa vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 12 November, 2014
Bench: Chief Justice, R.B Budihal
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
WP No.39817/2011(S-RES)
WP No.22392/2011 c/w WP No.40888/2011(S-DE)
In WP No.39817/2011
BETWEEN
SRI SHANKARAPPA
AGE: 49 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHIVAMURTHAPPA,
OCC: OVERSEAR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
WORK UNIT, MESCOM, SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
PRESENTLY R/AT MRS COLONY QUARTERS,
NO.26, VIDYANAGAR, SHIMOGA.
... PETITIONER
(By SRI RAVI B.NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR
Smt. VIJETHA R NAIK, ADV.,)
AND
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri P S DINESH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R.1
SRI G DEVRAJ, ADV., FOR R.2)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT &
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
UPALOKAYUKTA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT
PETITION AND QUASH THE ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
16.09.2011 ISSUED BY R1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G TO THE
WRIT PETITION.
IN WP No.22392/2011 (S-DE)
BETWEEN
MR ROMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O MYLAPPA,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
KPTCL, 220 KV CENTER, YERRANDAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 009 ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.K B NARAYANASWAMY, ADV., FOR
M/s. M.C. NARASIMHAN ASSOCIATES )
AND
1.THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ADMN. HRD.
2.KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV., FOR
SRI S.N. VENKATARAM, ADV., FOR R1 &
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BAYAREDDY, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R1 NOT
TO CONTINUE THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN PURSUANCE TO THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
19.12.2007 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AFTER THE ACQUITTAL
CRIMINAL CASE IN SPC. CC.NO.76/05 & THE ENQUIRY OFFICER'S
REPORT DATED 24.02.2010 WHICH WAS HELD THE PETITIONER
-3-
NOT GUILTY OF THE CHARGES & THE SAME CHARGES AS ILLEGAL
& ARBITRARY AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 18.05.2011 [SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 15.6.11]
PASSED BY R1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & LETTER DT.11.1.11
ISSUED BY THE UPALOKAYUKTHA R2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C &
OR TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER.
In WP No.40888/2011 (S-DE)
BETWEEN
SRI K SHIVANNA
S/O KARIYAPPA @ VEERABHADREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
E-5 SUB DIVISONI COOKSTOWN
BANGALORE - 560 010.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.V S NAIK, ADV.,)
AND
1.THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORORATION LTD.,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE 9,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ADMN. & HRD.
2.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 001.
3.KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUIDLING, DR.B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI P S DINESH KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1
R2 - SERVED
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BAYAREDDY, ADV., FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18.05.2011 ISSUED BY R1 AND THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE HON'BLE UPALOKAYUKTA IN FILE DATED
30.03.2011 THE ORIGINAL/TRUE COPY OF WHICH ARE VIDE
-4-
ANNEXURES-E & D RESPECTIVELY SINCE THE SAME ARE
ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND DIRECT R1 TO EXONERATE THE
PETITIONER OF ALL THE CHARGES AND WITH FURTHER
DIRECTION TO TREAT THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION AS ON DUTY
AND TO EXTEND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
INCLUDING ARREARS OF SALARY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
D.H.WAGHELA, C.J. (Oral) :
1. Common question of law having been involved in all the three petitions, they have been heard together and are disposed by this common order.
2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents jointly submitted that the sole legal issue arising in all the petitions is practically covered by order dated 05.11.2012 of Division Bench of this Court in WP No.62030/2012.
3. The almost identical facts, as far as they are relevant, are that the petitioners have called into question the final show cause notices issued by the employer company i.e. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), -5- which were issued before taking any final decision in respect of disciplinary actions initiated against the petitioners.
Admittedly, the impugned final show cause notices are based upon the recommendations issued by the Upalokayukta, Karnataka State, Bangalore, whereby penalty of compulsory retirement in each case is recommended. The contentions on behalf of the petitioners are restricted to the submission that, in spite of each petitioner being exonerated in the departmental enquiry held against them, learned Upalokayukta has disagreed with the reasons recorded by the Enquiry Officer in holding that charges were not proved. Therefore, before arriving at the conclusion that the charges were indeed established against the delinquent petitioners, an opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the petitioners by learned Upalokayukta. That argument is supported by aforesaid decision of Division Bench of this Court.
4. Under the circumstances, it was fairly conceded on behalf of the respondents that following the decision of the Division Bench, appropriate order directing the petitioners to treat the impugned final show cause notices as notice for filing -6- objections before learned Upalokayukta may be made, so as to afford to the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and allow learned Upalokayukta to make his recommendations after considering the objections/ representations that may be submitted by the petitioners. Consequently, the impugned final show cause notices as well as recommendations of the learned Upalokayukta will have to be quashed only on the limited ground of violation of principles of natural justice, in so far as the petitioners did not have an opportunity to be heard, before learned Upalokayukta decided to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer in each case.
5. Accordingly, by consent and upon joint request of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the impugned final show cause notice and the impugned recommendation of learned Upalokayukta in each petition are quashed, with the direction that petitioners shall, on the basis of the impugned recommendations of learned Upalokayukta, make their representations in writing before learned Upalokayukta, within a period of three weeks from today, whereupon learned Upalokayukta may, taking into consideration the representations proposed to be made by the -7- petitioners, prepare and send his recommendations within a period of three weeks to the employer i.e. KPTCL. It would, thereafter, be for the KPTCL to make final orders in respect of disciplinary action initiated against the petitioners.
6. The petitions are disposed by consent, in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE mv