Karnataka High Court
L. Shankaregouda vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 13 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(4)KARLJ49
Author: R. Gururajan
Bench: R. Gururajan
ORDER
1. This petition is filed by an Assistant Executive Engineer working in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, challenging the order dated 1-7-1999 bearing Nos. A:AOG:AAO:A-5:2546 to 2551 at Annexure-E. He has sought another prayer by way of direction to the respondents not to hold any enquiry/criminal proceedings in respect of the very same issue.
2. Petitioner in a detailed affidavit states that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner for certain extraneous reasons as per Annexure-A. Karnataka Electricity Board (Vigilance) submitted a report complaining about an alleged misappropriation by the petitioner of the Board materials. A first information report was filed and marked as Annexure-C. Petitioner was also kept under suspension. Petitioner in the meanwhile submitted a detailed representation bringing it to the notice of the respondents regarding his innocence, but however, without taking into consideration his representation, an order dated 1-7-1999 was passed ordering suspension of the petitioner from the services in terms of Annexure-E. Later a notice was served on him purporting to be a show cause under Regulation 11 of KEBEs (CDC and A) Regulation, 1987. Petitioner also submitted a reply to the said notice as per Annexure-G.
3. Karnataka Electricity Board (Vigilance) thereafter conducted a detailed enquiry and came to a conclusion that the allegations made against the petitioner was false in nature. A "B" report came to be filed on 15-10-1999. The jurisdictional Magistrate accepted the said report and dropped the proceedings in terms of the order dated 29-11-1999. The said order has become final. In the light of the submission of the B-Re-port and acceptance of the same by the learned Trial Judge, petitioner made a representation seeking for withdrawal of his suspension from the services by a representation at Annexures-K and L. In the absence of any positive action the petitioner has filed the above petition challenging the suspension on various grounds.
4. Notice was ordered and respondents entered appearance through their Counsel. Matter was heard on 14-7-2000. On the said date the respondents filed a memo stating that the petitioner has been taken back to duty and he has reported to duty at Munirabad the place where he was working previously. The Counsel for the petitioner stated that an order has been issued as per Annexure-M in which respondents have reserved liberty to proceed against the petitioner even after B-Report and therefore he wanted to challenge Annexure-M which is passed during the pendency of this petition. Permission was granted to challenge Annexure-M. In terms of the order of this Court on 14-7-2000 petitioner filed an amended petition challenging Annexure-M as well.
5. Respondents have filed a counter-statement in which they justified their action.
6. Heard the learned Counsels on either side.
7. Petitioner has admittedly made two prayers, the first being with regard to quashing of the suspension order dated 1-7-1999. Since the suspension has been already revoked by the respondents the first prayer does not survive for any consideration. The only other prayer with regard to reserving liberty to hold enquiry/criminal proceedings while reinstating the petitioner in terms of Annexure-M remains to be considered by me in this order. The facts in the case on hand is not in dispute. The petitioner is alleged to have committed a certain omission and commission by way of misappropriation during his working with the respondents. In respect of the said act of misappropriation, proceedings were rightly initiated by the respondents and an investigation was carried out in that regard. After investigation KEB (Vigilance) submitted a B-report which has been accepted by the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in terms of his order dated 29-11-1999, and closed the file. The said order has become final and conclusive and binding on parties.
8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after accepting the B-report by the Court the respondent cannot proceed to hold any enquiry or initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the very same matter.
9. Per contra the Counsel for the respondents asserts that the Management has every right to proceed even after acceptance of B-report. In the light of the rival submission I have to consider as to which of the pleas raised by either of the parties is correct.
10. It is well-settled that criminal proceedings stand on a different footing than that of the departmental proceedings. But if the facts/charges/incidence is same in both criminal as well as departmental proceedings, can the Management be permitted to continue the proceeding even after accepting B-report by a Court is a point that requires my consideration. This issue is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the latest judgment in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Limited and Another, has categorically ruled that after an order of acquittal in favour of the delinquent official, dismissal order if passed prior to acquittal order is unsustainable in law. The Supreme Court in para 34 has ruled as under:
"There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts namely 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom'. The finings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the 'raid and recovery' at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings, to stand".
11. In fact I, in my judgment in Writ Petition No. 18128 of 1997, dated 24-3-2000 after noticing the law on the point, have taken same or similar view. The judgment of mine is confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 4244 of 2000, dated 18-9-2000. In the light of these decisions I have no hesitation in holding that once the B-report is accepted and an order is passed by a competent jurisdictional Magistrate the Management has no power or jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings either by way of departmental proceedings or by way of criminal proceedings on the very facts. Any initiation after acceptance of the B-report by a learned Magistrate in respect of the same charges is without jurisdiction. Therefore the respondents on the facts of this case cannot be permitted to proceed further by way of departmental proceedings in the light of the order of the Criminal Court dated 29-11-1999. The contention of Mr. Gurreddi in this connection has to be accepted.
12. However, Mr. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Management argued at length and in particular invited my attention to the judgment in Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v Mohd. Yousuf Miya, to contra. He argued that judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case, supra, is by Division Bench and therefore I have to follow the earlier judgment in Depot Manager's case, supra, which is a larger Bench. Though Depot Manager's case, supra, judgment is by 3 learned Judges, the judgment is noticed in Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case, supra. On a careful reading of the judgment in Depot Manager's case, supra, it is seen that the set of facts in that case stand on a different footing. The judgment of Depot Managers case, supra, is one dealing with the question of staying of further proceedings departmen-tally during the pendency of the criminal proceeding. That was not a case of a concluded proceeding by a judicial body. Therefore, that judgment cannot be pressed into service even though rendered by a larger Bench to the facts of this case. In the case on hand the proceedings had ended in closure in view of the acceptance of B-report. In the circumstances the arguments of learned Counsel for the Management that even after accepting the B-report, they have a right to further proceed cannot be accepted.
13. In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed. Since the petitioner's request has already been conceded insofar as prayer 1 is concerned no further direction is issued. But insofar as prayer (b) in para 15 is concerned the same is granted. The respondents are hereby directed not to initiate any further proceedings either by way of departmental enquiry or by way of criminal proceedings in respect of the very same charges. However, I make it clear that this order should not be understood as coming in the way of respondents proceeding further against petitioner for any other omission and commission while working with KEB. In conclusion writ petition is allowed.
14. Parties to bear their own costs.