Karnataka High Court
Mr Ananda Kumar B vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 10 February, 2023
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
-1-
WA No. 76 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2022 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
MR. ANANDA KUMAR B
S/O LATE BALA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT NO 16/3, 3RD CROSS
2ND MAIN, NANJAPPA LAYOUT
VIDYARANYAPURA POST
BANGALORE 560097
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by R DEEPA
Location: High (BY MS. MEDINI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
Court of
Karnataka
SRI. HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
BHARAT ELECTORNICS LIMITED
REGISTETED AND CORPORATE OFFICE
OUTER RING ROAD
NAGAVARA
BANGALORE 560045
2. THE DIRECTOR (BANGALORE COMPLEX)
BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED
-2-
WA No. 76 of 2022
JALAHALLI
BANGALORE 560013
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P. NO. 40294/2011 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26.10.2011.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act challenging the order dated 26.10.2021, passed in W.P.No.40294/2011 by the learned Single Judge.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:
Appellant joined service in the respondent-company. The respondent-company received pseudonymous complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, enquiry proceedings were initiated. The enquiry officer submitted a report contending that the charges leveled against the appellant are proved. The disciplinary authority on the -3- WA No. 76 of 2022 basis of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, passed an order of dismissal from service. The appellant aggrieved by the order of dismissal preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service and order of Appellate Authority, preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.40294/2011. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the charges leveled against the appellant are not proved and they are based on pseudonymous complaint and based on hearsay evidence. The findings recorded in the enquiry are contrary to the evidence on record. The order of disciplinary authority is based on extraneous consideration. The learned Single Judge without -4- WA No. 76 of 2022 considering the said aspects, proceeded to pass the impugned order. Hence on these grounds, she prays to allow the writ appeal.
5. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. The appellant joined service in the respondent- company. The appellant while discharging his duty has played fraud, dishonesty, illegal gratification, corruption and misappropriation of company's fund and misuse of official power for personal gain. The respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the appellant. The appellant replied to the charge-sheet vide letter dated 06.11.2010, denying the charges leveled against him. The respondent No.2 - Management being dissatisfied by the reply, ordered an enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and the Management examined 5 witnesses and got marked documents. The -5- WA No. 76 of 2022 appellant participated in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer after recording the evidence, submitted a report contending that the charges leveled against the appellants are proved beyond reasonable doubt and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority issued a memo along with enquiry report to the appellant calling upon the appellant to submit an explanation. The appellant pursuant to the memo dated 10.05.2011, submitted a reply. Respondent issued a show-cause notice to the appellant on 02.06.2011, along with the copy of enquiry report calling for an explanation from the appellant. The appellant submitted a reply on 17.06.2011. The disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant passed a final order on 13.07.2011, dismissing the appellant from service with immediate effect. The appellant aggrieved by the order of dismissal, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 15.09.2011, dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal, respondent No.1 has recorded a finding that the -6- WA No. 76 of 2022 enquiry conducted is in accordance with the principles of natural justice after affording full and fair opportunity to the appellant to defend himself in the enquiry and further recorded a finding that the act of the appellant constitute a misconduct under the clause of CDA Rules of the company applicable to the executives of the company and consequently dismissed the appeal.
7. The appellant aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority preferred the writ petition. The appellant has raised a ground before the writ Court that the charge-sheet is issued on the basis of anonymous and pseudonymous letters. From the perusal of the report, it discloses that enquiry was initiated based on the statement made by the petitioner before Senior DGM on 05.10.2010, wherein the appellant has stated and accepted and the same is extracted "there was severe customer pressure to complete new STS at KSRTC junction and repair of STS at Bunts Hostel junction in Mangalore. The Circle Inspector incharge of above two junctions was -7- WA No. 76 of 2022 insisting on completing the work faster before his transfer. I got the work done from M/s. Prem Electronics without placing service order. The Circle Inspector immediately got payment for KSRTC junction and gave us completion certificate for Bunts Hostel junction. Measurement for the above two works were done by our technicians. Payment of the above two works were accommodated in Chikkamagaluru invoices."
8. In reply to the charge sheet, the appellant has not denied the statement made before the Senior DGM and further he has not taken any defence with regard to initiation of enquiry on the basis of anonymous or pseudonymous letters. When the appellant has not taken defence in the enquiry, the appellant has no right to raise such a ground in the writ petition. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and reply submitted to the show-cause notice, has passed an order of dismissal from service. The Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge, -8- WA No. 76 of 2022 after considering the material on record, held that the charges leveled against the appellant are proved and the order passed by the disciplinary authority is proportionate with the gravity of the misconduct. Hence, we do not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. Hence we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.
In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs., if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RD