Karnataka High Court
Shri. Chandrashekhar S/O M Paramanna vs The Managing Director And on 27 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 111857 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O. M. PARAMANNA,
AGE. 57 YEARS,
OCC. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELCL.,)
O AND M DIVISION HESCOM,
CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MANJANNA
E
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.28
10:26:14 +0530 COMPANY LTD., (KPTCL),
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) AND
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU.
3. GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN. AND HRD)
HESCOM, NAVANAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELCL.)
O AND M CIRCLE,
HESCOM BELAGAVI.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELCL.)
HESCOM BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.12.2016 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.KA VI PRA NI NI/B82/23513/2015-16
AS PER ANNEXURE-H CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 29.04.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN
NO.KA VI PRA NI NI/B53/24920/2011-12 AS PER ANNEXURE-F;
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28/01/2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
CAV O R D E R
The petitioner has called in question the order dated
29.04.2015 passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure-
F) and the appellate order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the
appellate authority (Annexure-H), whereby the petitioner
has been imposed with the penalty of withholding of two
annual increments with cumulative effect, recovery of
₹3,02,691/- at ₹10,000/- per month, treating the
suspension period as leave without pay.
Brief facts:
2. The petitioner, while working as Assistant
Executive Engineer between 04.10.2005 and 19.02.2007
was associated with execution of 8 kilometers 11 K.V. link
line work from Chulaki sub-station to Hulikatti. Proceedings
were initiated under Regulation 11 of the Karnataka
Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary
Control and Appeals) Regulation, 1987 ('Regulations 1987'
for short) alleging:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
i. Failure to supervise work.
ii. Diversion of materials.
iii. Causing financial loss to ₹3,02,691/-.
3. The enquiry officer, by a report dated
06.07.2013 (Annexure-C), recorded that:
i. Negligence was proved only in respect of
5668 meters of rabit conductor valued at
approximately ₹1,47,368/-.
ii. Alleged diversion of other materials was not
fully established.
iii. No categorical finding of total financial loss of
₹3,02,691/- was recorded.
4. However, the disciplinary authority by order
dated 29.04.2015 (Annexure-F) imposed recovery of
₹3,02,691/- along with other penalties. The appellate
authority confirmed the same by order dated 08.12.2016
(Annexure-H).
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
under Regulation 11A (2) of the Regulations 1987, the
disciplinary authority is indeed vested with the power to
disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer.
However, such power is not unfettered. It is contended that
when disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of
the enquiry officer, it is mandatory to:
a. Record specific reasons for such
disagreement.
b. Base its independent findings strictly on the
evidence available on record and the charges
framed.
c. Adhere to principles of natural justice.
6. In the present case, though the enquiry officer
recorded limited findings regarding supervisory lapse, the
disciplinary authority has travelled beyond the enquiry
findings without recording cogent reasons or demonstrating
as to how the evidence on record justifies a contrary
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
conclusion. Learned counsel further submits that though
respondent-board contends that withholding of increments
with or without cumulative effect constitutes a minor
penalty under Rule 9, such a contention is legally
unsustainable.
7. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of
Punjab1 (Kulwant Singh Gill), wherein, it has been held
that:
ii. Withholding of increment simpliciter may fall
within the minor penalty.
iii. However, withholding of increments with
cumulative effect has a consequence of
permanently reducing the employee's pay scale
progression.
iv. The Court observed that when increments are
withheld with cumulative effect, the "clock is put
back", in the time scale, and the employee
1
AIR Online 1990 SC 177
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
suffers a permanent adverse impact on future
earnings.
v. It is therefore contended that such penalty
cannot be treated as a mere minor punishment
in substance.
8. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the
decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna
Kumar Tamrakar Vs. Food Corporation of India and
Another2 (Krishna Kumar), wherein, the Court, following
Kulwant Singh Gill's decision held that withholding of
increment with cumulative effect cannot be lightly treated
as a minor penalty. Further relies on the decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajendra son of Chinu
Achari Vs. The Managing Director and The Appelate
Authority and Others3 (Rajendra), wherein, while
interpreting Regulation 11A of the Regulations, 1987, it has
been held that when the disciplinary authority disagrees
with the findings of the enquiry officer, it must assign
2
WP.No.2531/2001 D.D 04.01.2023
3
WP.No.100925/2017 D.D 28.10.2021
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
reasons. Absence of such reasoning, renders the order
unsustainable. It is further submitted that the impugned
order suffers from:
i. Absence of recorded reasons for disagreement.
ii. Enhancement of liability beyond recovery enquiry
findings.
iii. Imposition of punishment which, though styled
as minor penalty, in substance entails major civil
consequences.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
board submits that under Regulation 9 of Regulations 1987,
withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect
is classified as a minor penalty. The scope of judicial review
in disciplinary matters is limited and the Court does not act
as an appellate authority to appreciate evidence and relies
upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka and Another VS. Umesh4 (Umesh), wherein
4
2022 SCC Online SC 345
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings
has been reiterated.
10. Further reliance is placed on State of Rajasthan
and Others Vs. Bhupendra Singh5 (Bhupendra Singh), to
contend that the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction
should not interfere unless the decision is perverse, illegal
or violative of natural justice. It is contended that the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and perused the material on record. The point
that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the disciplinary authority could
impose liability contrary to the findings of the
enquiry officer without recording independent
reason and without affording opportunity to the
petitioner?"
5
C.A.Nos.8546-8549/2024
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
12. Regulation 11A (2) of the Regulations, 1987
empowers the disciplinary authority to disagree with the
findings of the enquiry officer. However, such a power is not
absolute or mechanical. The settled proposition of law is
that where disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings
of the enquiry officer and proposes to record a finding
adverse to the delinquent employee, it must record specific
reasons for such disagreement, base its conclusions strictly
on evidence on record, afford an opportunity to the
delinquent employee to respond to the proposed
disagreement.
13. In the present case, the enquiry officer held that
negligence was proved only to a limited extent. There is no
categorical finding fixing the entire liability of ₹3,02,691/-
on the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority
quantified the entire alleged loss, fastened full financial
liability on the petitioner and imposed withholding of two
increments with cumulative effect and ordered recovery of
₹3,02,691/-.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
14. On careful reading of the disciplinary authority
order, it is evidenced that no specific reasoning explaining
how the entire liability is attributable solely to the petitioner
is made out. Thus, though Regulation 11 is a clause to
permit disagreement, the mandatory procedural safeguards
have not been complied with.
15. The respondent-board though contends that
withholding of increments with cumulative effect is a minor
punishment under Regulation 9. However, the Apex Court in
the case of Kulwant Singh Gill has held that withholding
of increments with cumulative effect has permanent
adverse impact on pay progression. It effectively pushes the
employee down in the time scale and permanently affects
future earnings. In other words, it held that the "clock is
put back" to a lower stage in time scale of pay and cannot
be treated as trivial or insignificant consequence. When two
increments are withheld with cumulative effect, the
employee's time scale progression is permanently altered to
the remainder of the service. Thus, even if it was classified
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
as minor under the regulation, the substantive effect of
such penalty is serious and cannot be imposed lightly and
without strict adherence to the procedural safeguards.
16. This Court is also aware that in exercise of
judicial review, does not sit as an appellate authority over
disciplinary finding as held by the Apex Court in the case of
Umesh and Bhupendra Singh and the Court's interference
is limited to examining:
i. Violation of natural justice.
ii. Perversity of findings.
iii. Non-compliance with statutory rules.
iv. Disproportionate punishment.
17. In the present case, the interference is not a re-
appreciation of evidence but:
i. On the failure to record reasons while
disagreeing with the inquiry officer.
ii. Imposition of enhanced liability without
procedural compliance.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177
WP No. 111857 of 2017
HC-KAR
iii. Absence of quantified findings attributable to
the petitioner.
This squarely falls within the purview of judicial review.
18. The appellate authority was expected to
independently examine, but the impugned order if perused,
it merely affirms the disciplinary authority's decision without
addressing the procedural infirmity. Accordingly, the point
framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure-F) passed by the disciplinary authority is hereby quashed.
iii. The appellate order dated 08.12.2016 (Annexure-H) confirming the order of the disciplinary authority is also hereby set aside.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3177 WP No. 111857 of 2017 HC-KAR iv. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. v. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits flowing from this order.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2