Karnataka High Court
Sri M S Basappa vs The Karnataka Power Transmission on 1 July, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.27763 OF 2009 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI M.S.BASAPPA,
S/O.SHIVAPPA,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
R/O. #568/26-27, 'B' BLOCK,
SARASWATHI LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.B.MONESH KUMAR FOR M/S.RAVI B.NAIK ASSTS.)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL),
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
DAVANAGERE,
REPTD. BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
CIRCLE OFFICE, KPTCL,
DAVANAGERE.
3. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL),
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NATARAJ H.P. FOR V.Y.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT &
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DT.29.6.09, ISSUED BY THE R3,
PRODUCED AT ANN-D TO THE WP.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the endorsement issued by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., thereby paying 50% of the back wages for the period of suspension and denying rest of the 50% back wages to him.
2. The petitioner contends that at the relevant point of time he was working as Assistant Store Keeper in the Operation and Maintenance division. He was prosecuted for an offence punishable u/s 143, 304, 302 IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.120/2002 by the judgment dated 13.6.2005 convicted the petitioner. The said conviction order has been challenged in Criminal 3 Appeal No.1147/2005 and the same came to be allowed by the order dated 4.12.2007 and petitioner was acquitted extending the benefit of doubt. The case of the petitioner was considered and he was reinstated into service by the order dated 13.2.2008. Thereafter a representation was made requesting for back wages during the period of suspension, which was allowed for 50% by the order dated 29.6.2009, which is challenged in the present petition seeking for full salary.
3. The leaned counsel for the petitioner submits, before denying 50% of the salary, the petitioner has not been provided with an opportunity. He got acquitted in the criminal case and therefore he is entitled for full salary as if he was not kept under suspension.
4. The learned counsel for the K P T C L submits to dismiss this petition. It is submitted, what has been paid is only out of humanitarian consideration. At the first instance, the petitioner was convicted and extending benefit 4 of doubt, he was acquitted in the appeal. Wherever acquittal is on the benefit of doubt, then the respective case has to be considered by the respondent on the peculiar facts of that case and accordingly he has been paid 50% back wages. The learned counsel in support of the said contention, placed reliance on the decision in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs., The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board (CDJ 1996 SC 333).
5. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent corporation has considered his case for 50% back wages. Regulation 85(b) of the Corporation provides that it is for the authority to decide on the basis of nature of evidence and acquittal. If the authority comes to conclusion that the employee has been fully exonerated or in case of suspension that he was waiting unjustifiably, the employee shall be given for the period referred to in clause
(i), the full salary and allowance to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed or removed etc., 5 In the instant case, the petitioner was convicted initially and later acquitted in the appeal extending the benefit of doubt which was extended to the other accused in the same case. The Regulation 90(b) provides that period of suspension shall not count as service unless the order reinstating an employee specifies in terms of Regulation 85. The power conferred on the competent authority has been properly exercised in consonance with Regulation 85 read with Regulation 90 and fixed back wages at 50% which cannot be said either illegal or arbitrary.
6. The contention of the petitioner that whether it is honourable acquittal or acquittal on benefit of doubt, the petitioner is entitled for full back wages cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra, where in Para-3 it is stated as follows:
"3...... The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and 6 the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in its own backdrop. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these cirumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages...."
7. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the competent authority has exercised its power in terms of the Regulations and taken a decision to pay only 50% of the back wages. The said decision cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKD