Karnataka High Court
The Director vs Sri. Y.B. Raghavendra on 16 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT APPEAL NO.64 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIRECTOR (A & HR)
KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560009
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE
NO.29, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
HINAKAL, MYSORE 570017
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (A & HR)
CHESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE
NO.29, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
HINAKAL, MYSORE-570017
4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE)
CHESCOM, O & M CIRCLE
SANTHEPETE, B.M. ROAD
HASSAN-573201
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
O & M DIVISION, CHESCOM
CHANNARAYAPATNA
HASSAN DISTRICT-57316
6. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
NUGGEHALLI SUB-DIVISION, CHESCOM
CHANNARAYAPATNA DIVISION
HASSAN DISTRICT-573131
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. LAXMIKANTHA.K.B, ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND:
SRI. Y.B. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O BHEEMEGOWA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
CHESCOM, DIVISION OFFICE
SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13/09/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE
AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.28254/2019 (S-RES).
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ J MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28254/2019. By way of the said order, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein has been allowed and the orders dated 06.06.2019 and 26.06.2019 were quashed, through the said orders, the regularisation of the respondent No.1 was cancelled. The learned Single Judge has directed the respondent-CHESCOM to grant all the consequential benefits in pursuance of the order of regularization of the petitioner dated 14.01.2019. -3-
2. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is predicated on the earlier order passed by this Court dated 10.10.2018 in W.P.Nos.15712-15828/2015 and other connected matters wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:
"8. In that view of the matter, I hold that the petitioners, who are appointed as per the Notification and are working as per the appointment orders issued in 2007, and in view of the fact that the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd./respective Electricity Supply Companies have resolved to regularize their services and forwarded the same to the Government for passing necessary orders of regularization, the petitioners are entitled for regularization with effect from 29th December 2010 with consequential service and monetary benefits. Ordered accordingly. The respondents shall comply with these directions within three months from the date of issuance of copy of this order".
3. Taking into account the said order of the Division Bench, the writ petitioner's service was regularised vide order dated 14.01.2019.
4. The respondent-authorities after such regularization, sought for cancellation of the regularisation on the ground that as on the date on which the regularisation was recommended, the writ petitioner was unauthorisedly absent and as such, violated condition No.5 of the order dated 14.01.2019 -4- issued by the Director, Administration and Human Resources, which require that any of the candidates to be regularised ought not to have remained unauthorizedly absent prior to the orders of this Court dated 10.10.2018.
5. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has taken into account that the said condition was not part of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.15712-15828/2015 and other connected matters and having come to a conclusion that the regularization having been effected on 14.01.2019, the writ petitioner could not be deprived of the benefits available to a regularised revenue assistant and further held that the condition imposed is improper and quashed the impugned orders dated 06.06.2019 and 26.06.2019.
6. Sri.Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the said orders since as on that date, the writ petitioner -5- was unauthorisedly absent and also there were disciplinary proceedings, which were pending against the writ petitioner on account of the writ petitioner having destroyed the records of the employer concerned. He submits that these aspects led to the cancellation of the regularisation of the writ petitioner.
7. Per contra, Sri.K.Srinivasa, learned counsel for writ petitioner/respondent would submit that the regularisation which has been effected on 14.01.2019 continued, the writ petitioner was transferred as a regular employee to another location where the writ petitioner was discharged his duties and it is at that time, the impugned orders were passed. He further submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is proper and correct and there being no reason for imposing a restriction in terms of restriction No.5 in the government order dated 14.01.2019, the order does not require interference.
-6-
8. Heard Sri.Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Srinivasa, learned counsel for respondent and perused the records.
9. The short question that would arise for our consideration is as to whether a further condition could have been imposed subsequent to the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.15712-15828/2015 whereby this Court had directed for regularization of all the persons who had been employed under the appointment orders issued in the year 2007?
10. The only reason why the regularisation of the writ petitioner was sought to be disturbed was on account of the writ petitioner having remained absent unauthorisedly as on 10.10.2018 that is the date of the judgment.
11. When no such condition has been imposed by this Court, it is impermissible for the appellant to deny the benefit of the said order by issuance of an order through its Director, Administration and Human -7- Resources that the benefit would not be provided in the event of the employee being unauthorisedly absent and/or any disciplinary proceedings being pending. The aspect of regularisation is already decided by this Court and the same has attained finality not having been challenged by the appellant herein.
12. It was but required for all the employees who were appointed under the orders issued in the year 2007 to be regularised and no new condition could have been imposed. Hence, there is no such condition which has been imposed by this Court in its judgment and as such, the learned Single Judge having considered this aspect has rightly quashed the order of withdrawal more so when the said order of withdrawal was made without any notice having been issued to the respondent herein.
13. The contention of Sri. Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel is that in view of the regularisation, the authorities are not able to take any disciplinary action against the writ petitioner is -8- completely misconceived inasmuch as any action for indiscipline would always continue with the authorities irrespective of regularisation.
14. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge would not come in the way of the appellant taking necessary action against the writ petitioner in the event of writ petitioner acting contrary to the terms of service and or indulging himself in any unlawful activities by initiating and following necessary proceedings in accordance with law.
15. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*