Karnataka High Court
Shashikant S/O Doddagouda vs The Managing Director on 19 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387
WP No. 100359 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.100359 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHASHIKANT S/O. DODDAGOUDA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ENGINEER,
R/O: MARAKUMBI VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATI,
DIST: KOPPAL - 583 231
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S.YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION
LIMITED HEAD OFFICE, 3RD BMTC COMPLEX,
KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA 2. THE DIRECTOR, BENGALURU METRO RAIL
PATTIHAL
Location: High CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE,
Court of
Karnataka, 3RD BMTC COMPLEX, KENGAL
Dharwad Bench
HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR),
BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
BAIYAPPANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 038.
4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (SINGALING)
BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
BAIYAPPANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 56 0038
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.P.MURARI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387
WP No. 100359 of 2025
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR A
DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TERMINATION
BEARING NO.BMRCL/O AND M/HR/PF/20343/ DATED 17.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT
PETITION. ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE
ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO EXTEND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order of termination dated 17.01.2025.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri S.S. Yadrami appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri A.P. Murari representing for the respondents.
3. The fact in brief germane are as follows:
The petitioner is appointed as a Maintenance Engineer or a Signal Maintainer in the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation and is subsequently promoted to the cadre of Junior Engineer on 22.11.2019. Between the aforesaid two -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387 WP No. 100359 of 2025 dates i.e., the date of appointment on 27.01.2012 and the date of promotion on 22.11.2019, the petitioner gets embroiled in a crime. The crime is tried by the Court of Sessions in S.C. (A.C) No.12 of 2015, which ends up in conviction of the petitioner on 21.10.2024. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of conviction, files an appeal before the Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No.100548/2024. The sentence is suspended on 13.11.2024. The petitioner is then issued a show cause notice on 23.11.2024 seeking to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service on account of him getting convicted of the offences in S.C. (A.C.) No.12 of 2015 in terms of the order dated 21.10.2024 by the concerned Court. The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply. This ends up in termination of the petitioner on 17.01.2025.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri S.S. Yadrami appearing for the petitioner would contend that on conviction of an employee, the only penalty that is inevitably to be imposed is not dismissal from service, the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387 WP No. 100359 of 2025 penalties can ranging from removal, compulsory retirement and then to dismissal from service. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS TULSIRAM PATEL AND OTHERS1. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that a subsequent development would ennure to the benefit of the petitioner. The Division Bench which was hearing the criminal appeal, has by its order dated 25.01.2025 stayed the conviction. In the light of the said stay of the order of conviction, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner becomes entitled to the reinstatement into services.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Shri A.P. Murari representing the respondents would vehemently refute the submissions contending that once the employee incurs conviction, the inevitable choice would be imposition of penalty of dismissal from service as on the date of passage 1 AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 1416 -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387 WP No. 100359 of 2025 of the order of termination, the only circumstance was sentence was suspended and bail granted, but there was no stay of conviction. Therefore, no fault can be found with the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner on account of the subsistence of the order of conviction. He would submit that, in the light of the interim order of stay granted, the consequential action should be directed by this Court.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and the issue lies in a narrow compass at this juncture. The petitioner joining the services is a matter of record and him getting embroiled in a crime and convicted is also a matter of record. The conviction leading to issuance of a show cause notice as to why the services of the petitioner should not be terminated is the trigger point of the petition. The petitioner replies to the said notice, by then the Division -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387 WP No. 100359 of 2025 Bench, which was hearing the criminal appeal suspends the sentence and grants bail, but does not grant stay of the order of conviction. Therefore, the respondents chose to terminate the services of the petitioner by the impugned order.
8. The submission of the learned counsel Shri A.P. Murari would merit acceptance as no fault can be found with the respondents in terminating the services as on the date of termination, the conviction had not yet been stayed. On 25.01.2025, the Division Bench passes the following order:
The appellant/applicant (accused No.90) in S.C.(AC) No.12/2015, on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, filed IA.No.1/2025 under Section 389 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., [Section 430 r/w Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023] to stay the judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2024 and order on sentence dated 24.10.2024.
2. It is contended that accused along with other 117 persons have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 436, 448, 323, 324, 326, 354, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(xi), Section 3(2)(iv) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After trial, all the accused have been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences.
3. It is further contended that appellant/accused is a permanent employee of Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (for short, 'BMRCL') and joined the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387 WP No. 100359 of 2025 services during the year 2013. This Court suspended the sentence imposed against the appellant. In view of the said order, he was released from the custody on 16.11.2024. He reported to duty on 17.11.2024. On 21.11.2024, his name in the attendance register was removed without any intimation and show cause notice was issued to him on 27.11.2024, calling explanation as to why he shall not be removed from service.
4. During the course of the arguments, it is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in the last week, he was removed from the services due to conviction in this case.
5. It is further contended that as per the case of the prosecution, it was a mob violation. None of the witnesses have stated overtact of the accused No.90/appellant in their evidence. He has contended that on the alleged date of incident, he was on duty and he has produced attendance certificate with the application. The investigating officer has not considered these facts and blindly submitted the charge sheet. The trial Court has not considered contentions of the appellant and erroneously convicted and sentenced him. It is further contended that the accused has personal and social responsibilities; due to conviction in this case, he was removed from service.
Appellant has good grounds of appeal and he has fair chance of success in this appeal. If the impugned judgment is not stayed, then he will lose his job without any of his fault and he will be put to irreparable loss even if he succeeds in this appeal. With reasons he prayed to stay the impugned judgment.
6. The learned Addl.State Public Prosecutor filed objections to the said application. The learned Addl.SPP contended that accused/appellant has committed heinous offence. Considering the materials on record, the trial Court rightly convicted him. He has no fair chance of success in this appeal. If impugned judgment is stayed, it will cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution. There are no ground to stay the impugned judgment and hence prayed to reject the application.
-8-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387 WP No. 100359 of 2025
7. The accused/appellant is convicted for the above said offences and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period of two months to imprisonment for life on different Sections of law. The sentence imposed against the appellant and some other accused who have preferred appeal has been suspended by this Court. Appellant is said to be working as an Engineer in BMRCL. Along with application, he has produced copy of the attendance certificate said to be given by BMRCL stating that he was on duty from 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 28.08.2014 i.e., alleged date of incident. Show cause notice dated 23.11.2024 was issued against the appellant calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted that the accused has been removed from the service during pendency of this application. Appellant contends that he has fair chance of success in this appeal, on the grounds stated in the appeal. Considering contention of appellant that matter requires reconsideration of impugned judgment on merits. It may take some time to dispose of this appeal. He is removed from service only on the ground of conviction in this case. Looking to the contentions of the appellant, facts and circumstances of this case if impugned judgment is not stayed, he will be put to irreparable loss and it may not be possible for the appellant to appeal to the employer for restoration of his employment. Even if he succeeds in this appeal, he will be put to irreparable loss.
8. In the case of Rama Narang -vs- Ramesh Narang and others, 2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :
"19. That takes us to the question whether the scope of Section 389(1) of the Code extends to conferring power on the Appellate Court to stay the operation of the order of conviction. As stated earlier, if the order of conviction is to result in some disqualification of the type mentioned in Section 267 of the Companies Act, 2 (1995) 2 SCC 513 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387 WP No. 100359 of 2025 we see no reason why we should give a narrow meaning to Section 389(1) of the Code to debar the court from granting an order to that effect in a fit case. The appeal under Section 374 is essentially against the order of conviction because the order of sentence is merely consequential thereto; albeit even the order of sentence can be independently challenged if it is harsh and disproportionate to the established guilt. Therefore, when an appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code the appeal is against both the conviction and sentence and therefore, we see no reason to place a narrow interpretation on Section 389(1) of the Code not to extend it to an order of conviction, although that issue in the instant case recedes to the background because High Courts can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code if the power was not to be found in Section 389(1) of the Code. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay was not right in holding that the Delhi High Court could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code if it was confronted with a situation of there being no other provision in the Code for staying the operation of the order of conviction. In a fit case if the High Court feels satisfied that the order of conviction needs to be suspended or stayed so that the convicted person does not suffer from a certain disqualification provided for in any other statute, it may exercise the power because otherwise the damage done cannot be undone;
the disqualification incurred by Section 267 of the Companies Act and given effect to cannot be undone at a subsequent date if the conviction is set aside by the Appellate Court. But while granting a stay of (sic or) suspension of the order of conviction the Court must examine the pros and cons and if it feels satisfied that a case is made out for grant of such an order, it may do so and in so doing it may, if it considers it appropriate, impose such conditions as are considered appropriate to protect the interest of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387 WP No. 100359 of 2025 the shareholders and the business of the company."
In the case of Rahul Gandhi -vs- Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi and another3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., in an appropriate cases where the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused to the maximum period of imprisonment without reasons, the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to stay the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
9. In this case, appellant contends that "appellant is an employee of BMRCL. The said company has given certificate that on the alleged date of incident, he was on duty". The contentions of the appellant are that "there is no direct evidence against him and the alleged overtact committed by him at the time of the incident. According to the case of the prosecution, it was a mob attack on the alleged victims. There is no clear evidence about involvement of the appellant in the incident. Therefore, the trial Court has committed grave error in convicting him". Looking to the said contentions, re-consideration of the impugned judgment is required. Employer of the appellant has already issued show cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. According to the submission of the appellant, he has been removed from the service after filing the application for stay. Appellant has made out a case to grant the relief of stay of impugned judgment. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgments and in the ends of justice, it is just and necessary to stay the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. While suspending sentence, this court imposed conditions and hence no need to impose additional conditions.
10. Accordingly, we pass the following :
3(2024) 2 SCC 595
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387 WP No. 100359 of 2025 ORDER IA.No.1/2025 is allowed.
Impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2024 and order on sentence dated 24.10.2024 insofar as appellant/accused No.90 is concerned, is stayed till the disposal of this appeal."
9. In terms of the said order, the order of conviction stood stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The only circumstance that led to the termination of the petitioner was his conviction. The conviction having been stayed today and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of such, stay of conviction. Therefore, the respondents shall now consider the reinstatement of the petitioner into services subject to the outcome of the criminal appeal that is pending as there is an interim order of stay of conviction as well. It is trite law that merely sentence being suspended would not ennure to anybody's benefit, seeking reinstatement or not to be terminated, but since the conviction itself is stayed, it would ennure to the benefit of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3387
WP No. 100359 of 2025
ORDER
(i) The petition is disposed.
(ii) The respondents shall now consider
reinstatement of the petitioner back into the services, which shall however remain subject to the result of the criminal appeal in Criminal Appeal No.100548/2024 or any further orders that would be passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid criminal appeal.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47