Karnataka High Court
Mr. Karan Kumar vs Bharat Electronics Limited on 8 July, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 57642 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
MR. KARAN KUMAR
SON OF ASHOK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT B-943,
AVANTIKA SECTOR-1, ROHINI
DELHI-110085
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LASHA KALAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ANNAPOORNA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
OUTER RING ROAD, NAGAVARA
Digitally signed BANGALORE-560045
by SHWETHA REPRESENTED BY HEREIN BY ITS
RAGHAVENDRA
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF .... RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND/OR ANY SUCH/OTHER WRIT OR ORDER
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO TRANSFER THE BOND TO THE ONGC
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any
such/other writ or order directing Respondent to
transfer the bond to the ONGC;
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any
such/other writ or order directing Respondent to
refund the 'bond amount' unjustifiably and illegally
retained by the Respondent;
iii. Grant costs and pass such other/further order
including the grant of interest on and damages to the
petitioner, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in light of
the facts and circumstances of the case in the
interests of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Delhi and a
graduate of IIT Patna in Computer Science
Engineering who joined the respondent, Bharat
Electronics Limited (for short hereinafter referred to
as "BEL") on 25.11.2015 under probation. A
provisional letter of appointment had been issued on
10.09.2015.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
3. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner signed a proforma
of a service agreement, agreeing to the various
conditions that had been imposed, including the
requirement of the petitioner to undergo a training
period for six months and, upon successful
completion of the training period, to join the services
of the BEL. It was also indicated that there would be
a mandatory bond period of three years and in the
event of the petitioner ceasing to be a probationer or
giving up training, the petitioner would refund to BEL
the expenditure that may be incurred in connection
with the training, which was subject to a maximum
of Rs.3 lakhs.
4. On 05.05.2016, the petitioner received an offer of
appointment from Bharat Broadband Network
Limited (for short herein after referred to as
"BBNL"), another public-sector undertaking. The
petitioner claims that after discussing with the
officers of BEL, he had submitted a resignation on
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
10.05.2016, so as to enable the transfer of the bond
held by BEL to BBNL. The petitioner was thereafter
informed that in order to process his resignation, he
would be required to make payment of a sum of
Rs.3,23,969/-, which included a training bond
amount of Rs.2,95,000/-, and the said amount was
required to be deposited immediately. On such a
deposit, the resignation letter would be processed.
5. While things stood thus, the BBNL did not respond to
the request made by BEL or the Petitioner, and the
Petitioner received an offer from Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as
"ONGC"), for a position of Materials Management
Officer. In this background, the petitioner wrote to
BBNL on 08.07.2016, stating that he would not be
able to join BBNL and requested that BBNL inform
BEL about the withdrawal of his application. Hence,
BBNL, vide its letter dated July 11, 2016, informed
BEL that the candidate had withdrawn his acceptance
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
of the offer of appointment. Thereafter, on the very
same date, the petitioner wrote to BEL, informing
them of the resignations submitted on 10.05.2016
and the request made to transfer the service bond to
BBNL, which process had not been completed; as
such, he had withdrawn his candidature.
6. He further informed BEL about the offer made by
ONGC and therefore requested that the service bond
be transferred to ONGC. In its letter dated
19.07.2016, BEL responded to the petitioner,
indicating that since his last working day with BEL
was on 20.05.2016, the subsequent request made on
11.07.2016 could not be accepted, and the transfer
of bond to ONGC, having been examined, could not
be agreed upon.
7. Thereafter, on 19.07.2016, BEL wrote to the
petitioner informing him that if his resignation were
to be considered and accepted, he would have to
make payment of sum of Rs.2,95,000/- towards the
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
breach of service contract. The petitioner sought the
details of the bank account of BEL on 21.07.2016,
which were furnished on the same date. On
22.07.2016, the petitioner transferred Rs.5,000/- as
a test and thereafter on the very same day
transferred the balance Rs.2,90,000/-. In pursuance
of which, a relieving letter was issued by BEL on
22.07.2016.
8. The petitioner thereafter joined ONGC and filed
various applications seeking a refund of the monies,
and thereafter filed various applications under the
RTI Act, causing queries as to why the said amount
has not been refunded, and it is in that background
that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the
aforesaid reliefs.
9. The submission of Ms.Annapoorna S., learned
counsel for the petitioner, is that;
9.1. Respondent-BEL being Public Sector
Undertaking (for short hereinafter referred to
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
as "PSU") so also BBNL and ONGC being PSUs
as per the personal policies as per DPE
guidelines, more particularly Clause (b) of Rule
27, if an employee of a Central Public
Enterprise were to secure employment with
another public enterprise with proper
permission, then the bond could be transferred.
As such, she submits that the training and/or
the employment of the petitioner, continuing to
enure to the benefit of another PSU, namely
ONGC, BEL, who had agreed to transfer the
bond to BBNL, ought to have transferred the
same to ONGC without calling upon the
petitioner to make payment of any monies.
9.2. The petitioner, being forced and constrained to
make payment of the amounts in order to
secure a relieving letter, having requested a
refund of the monies, BEL ought to have
refunded those monies.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
9.3. She submits that BEL is not entitled to retain
the said monies inasmuch as there is no breach
as such committed by the petitioner. The
petitioner, having joined the services of another
PSU, ONGC, and having continued to serve
ONGC for the bond period of three years, there
being no default on the part of the petitioner,
the bond would lapse with the expiry of three
years and, as such, could not be invoked.
9.4. The petitioner was constrained to make
payment of the amounts as demanded by BEL
in order to secure a relieving letter. The same
cannot be held against the petitioner, in fact,
she submitted that the BEL, being in a
dominant position, has prevailed upon the
petitioner to make payment of the amounts.
9.5. She therefore submitted that the writ petition
should be allowed and a direction issued to BEL
to refund the amount deposited.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
10. Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda., learned counsel for BEL
would submit that;
10.1. The petitioner made a fraudulent representation
regarding not having appeared for any other
interview with any other PSU or similar entity.
The interviews attended by the petitioner with
BBNL and ONGC were prior to that with BEL
i.e., prior to the appointment of the petitioner
by BEL.
10.2. The offer letters of BBNL and ONGC were
received after the petitioner joined BEL. At the
time of joining BEL, the petitioner had given an
affidavit of undertaking, wherein the petitioner
had categorically indicated that they had not
attended any other interview. This statement
being false on its face, the BEL initially, when
the petitioner requested the bond to be
transferred to BBNL, acceded to the same.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
10.3. When a subsequent request was made for
transfer of the bond to ONGC, realising that the
petitioner is misusing the opportunities, BEL
refused to transfer the said bond and had called
upon the petitioner to make payment of the
amounts to provide a relieving letter.
10.4. He therefore submits that they cannot be an
order passed against BEL directing BEL to
refund the amounts deposited by the petitioner,
the petitioner having availed the benefit of such
deposit by receiving a relieving letter and
joining ONGC.
11. Heard Ms.Annapoorna S., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda,
learned counsel appearing for BEL. Perused papers.
12. The short question that would arise for consideration
in the present matter is;
"Whether BEL could have refused to
transfer the bond amount and/or refund the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
amounts covered under the bond in the
present case".
13. The dates are not in dispute. The petitioner had
joined BEL on 25.11.2015, he received the offer from
BBNL on 05.05.2016, and tendered resignation to
BEL on 10.05.2016. The demand for the bond
amount was made by BEL on 19.05.2016, pursuant
to which, on 28.05.2016, no response was received
from BBNL. On 28.05.2016, BEL wrote to BBNL
agreeing to transfer the bond. On 05.07.2016, the
petitioner received an offer from ONGC. On
08.07.2016, the petitioner wrote a letter to BBNL
withdrawing his candidature. On 19.07.2016, BEL
called upon the petitioner to make payment of the
bond amount for processing his resignation, which
was deposited on 22.07.2016.
14. What is required to be considered by this Court is the
factum of BEL being ready to transfer the bond to
BBNL and thereafter having refused to transfer the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
same to ONGC on the ground that the first request
was accepted in a lenient manner and the second
request was rejected since the petitioner had
allegedly made false statements.
15. Even though the petitioner had made a false
declaration that he had not attended any interview,
this fact was already to the knowledge of BEL when
BEL agreed to transfer the bond amount to BBNL
vide its letter dated 28.05.2016. The offer of
appointment made by BBNL was to the knowledge of
BEL, the said offer categorically indicated that an
advertisement had been published on 29.09.2014
pursuant to which the petitioner had appeared for
the interview which was before joining BEL, despite
which BEL had agreed to transfer the bond amount.
16. This aspect is also categorically established by the
reply issued by the BEL in pursuance of an
application filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act
on 20.7.2016, wherein it has been categorically
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
stated that the petitioner having submitted his
resignation letter on 10.05.2016, his resignation and
transfer of bond was processed and approved
immediately. The request for transfer of bond to
ONGC, having been made on 11.07.2016 after his
resignation from BEL, was not agreed to.
17. On enquiry with Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned
counsel for BEL, as to whether the bond had been
transferred to BBNL, he submits that since the
candidature of the petitioner had been withdrawn
from BBNL before the transfer could be made, the
transfer was not affected.
18. In that view of the matter, it is seen that BEL had
agreed to and was to transfer the bond to BBNL,
having agreed to do so, despite the alleged
misstatement or fraud said to have been committed
by the petitioner. It was only when a further request
was made for the transfer of the bond to ONGC that
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
this request was rejected on the grounds that it was
made after the petitioner's resignation.
19. The aspect of transfer of bond would arise only upon
the employee's resignation, as submitted by the
petitioner, after resignation or at the latest,
simultaneously with the resignation. Therefore, such
a transfer cannot be sought prior to resignation.
20. If that be so, the reasons provided by BEL that the
request for transfer of bond to ONGC was not
accepted, since the petitioner had resigned from BEL
on 10.05.2016, do not stand the test of reason. If
BEL was ready to transfer the bond on 10.05.2016,
after the resignation was submitted, the request
made on 11.07.2016 for transfer of the bond could
not have been rejected on the ground that the
petitioner had already resigned from BEL. This
reason provided by BEL cannot be accepted, nor is it
countenanced under any law.
21. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25024
WP No. 57642 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The Writ petition is allowed. ii. A mandamus is issued, directing Respondent No.2 to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioner, namely Rs.2,95,000/-, to the petitioner within four weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79