Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Power Corporation Limited vs Basavaraju N on 25 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39129-DB
WA No. 120 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2024 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT: SHAKTI BHAVAN
No.82, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY KABADE
D.R. MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. CHIEF ENGINEER
(OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE),
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,
SHAKTI BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD,
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 001.
by ...APPELLANTS
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA
Location: High
(BY SRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADV.,)
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. BASAVARAJU N.
S/O LATE NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR SUB DIVISION,
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39129-DB
WA No. 120 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
3. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-2;
SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADV., FOR
SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADV., FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 27.09.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
No.12408/2022 IN SO FAR AS LIBERTY TO ISSUE FRESH
CHARGE MEMO IS REFUSED AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39129-DB
WA No. 120 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) The writ petition was filed with the following prayers;
"(a) Call for the records from the Respondent No.4 in respect of the impugned charge memo dated 31.01.2022/01.02.2022 Annexure-J;
(b) Issue writ or order quashing the
impugned charge memo dated
31.01.2022/01.02.2022 bearing No.MuuAa
(Cha and Ni) BaaShaa/GowPya/1101 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-J), and all further proceedings thereon, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. By the judgment dated 27.09.2023, the learned Single Judge held that since the deputation of the writ petitioner was ordered and later continued by the Government, the Corporation could not contend that petitioner was unauthorizedly absent. The withdrawal of the charge memo was therefore accepted. However, the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:39129-DB WA No. 120 of 2024 HC-KAR request made by the Corporation to reserve liberty to issue a fresh charge memo was also rejected on the ground that there is no unauthorized absent.
3. The writ appeal is preferred by the KPTCL, the Principal employer against the said direction of the learned Single Judge.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that extension of deputation had been granted by the Government without any consent from appellant No.1- KPTCL, who is the Principal employer of respondent No.1.
5. Learned counsel appearing for BBMP also submits that the BBMP had not made any request for retaining services of respondent No.1 and that BBMP does not require such services as at present, there is no further order of extension of deputation as well. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:39129-DB WA No. 120 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. When the matter came up for consideration before us, an order was passed on 18.09.2025 directing respondent No.1 to report for duty before appellant No.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that respondent No.1 has not reported for duty till date.
7. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that since respondent No.1 has not reported for duty before appellant No.1 even inspite of the order passed by this Court, it is for appellant No.1 to take appropriate further disciplinary action as against respondent No.1. In view of the fact that the directions issued by this Court have not been complied with, we are of the opinion that respondent No.1 is not entitled to any further accommodation in this appeal.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, appeal is allowed. Appellant No.1 is permitted to -6- NC: 2025:KHC:39129-DB WA No. 120 of 2024 HC-KAR take further disciplinary action as against respondent No.1.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3