Karnataka High Court
Ranga vs Managing Director on 20 October, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.46655/2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
RANGA
S/O LARIYAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT STORES KEEPER
OFFICE OF THE MAJOR WORKS DIVISION
DIVISIOAL STORES
KPTCL, HASSAN-573201. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SRINIVASA.K., ADV.)
AND:
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRIC
SUPPLY COMPANY
CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.29
VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE
MYSORE-570017.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER [ELE]
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
O & M ZONE, CESCOM, MYSORE-570017.
3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER [ELEC]
O & M CIRCLE, CESCOM
B.M. ROAD, HASSAN-573201.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [ELEC]
O & M DIVISION
HOLENARASIPUR SUB DIVISION
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573201. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.C.SHANMUKHA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4.)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF PUNISHMENT PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND THE
ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.08.2019 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-P TO THE WRIT PETITION;
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner, working as Assistant Stores Keeper in the CESCOM - fourth respondent office is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the order of punishment bearing No.C.EA.(«)G¯É¤/¯ÉC/»¸À/2018-19 dated 21.06.2018 [Annexure-M] and endorsement issued by the Appellate Authority bearing No.ªÀÄÄ.EA.(«)DPÁ/E«- 05/ªÉÄʪÀ/2019-20/¹-247-51 dated 22.08.2019 [Annexure-P], wherein the Appellate Authority held that the appeal of the appellant would be considered on disposal of the proceedings pending before the Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Srinivasa.K., for the petitioner and the learned counsel 3 Sri.Shanmukha for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 16.05.2016 alleging receiving illegal gratification from the villagers for regularization of Irrigation Pump Sets (IP sets). Thereafter, Charge Memo dated 17.12.2016 was issued initiating enquiry against the petitioner. In pursuance to the Charge Memo, Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondents conducted enquiry and submitted report dated 12.03.2018. The petitioner was issued second show cause notice dated 26.05.2018 enclosing a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply at Annexure-L dated 05.06.2018. The Disciplinary Authority - third respondent, imposed punishment of demotion from the cadre of Junior Engineer to the cadre of Meter Reader with a direction to fix the pay at the minimum of the scale of Meter Reader. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioner filed appeal 4 before the second respondent under Annexure-N dated 16.08.2018. The second respondent - Appellate Authority issued endorsement dated 22.08.2019 [Annexure-P] stating that the appeal of the petitioner would be considered on disposal of the criminal proceedings pending before the Court. Aggrieved by the said endorsement as well as the punishment order, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Srinivasa.K., for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of punishment is wholly illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice. Further, he would submit that the allegation against the petitioner is baseless and there is no material to prove the alleged charge. Further, the learned counsel would submit that if the pending criminal proceedings is impediment for consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner, the same should have been taken note of while imposing the punishment under the impugned order dated 21.06.2018. Learned counsel would submit that since the criminal case in 5 C.C.No.389/2019 was pending with regard to same issue, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have waited till the criminal case is disposed of, to impose the punishment. Thus, he prays for a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Shanmukha for respondents submits that since the criminal case is pending, the second respondent Chief Engineer [Appellate Authority] thought it fit to defer the consideration of appeal till the disposal of criminal case pending against the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner failed to participate in the enquiry and cross-examine the witnesses. Since the charges are proved against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority rightly imposed the punishment.
6. The Disciplinary Authority - third respondent under Annexure-M dated 21.06.2018 imposed punishment of demoting the petitioner from 6 the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Meter Reader with a direction to fix the pay of the petitioner in the cadre of Meter Reader in the minimum of the pay scale of the said post. At this stage, this Court would not venture to go into the merit or otherwise of the enquiry and the order of punishment. Admittedly, the petitioner filed appeal against the order of punishment dated 21.06.2018. The Appellate Authority issued endorsement. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
"ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæ (1) gÀ°è C¢üÃPÀëPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («) ºÁUÀÆ ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÁ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á.ªÀÈvÀÛ, ºÁ¸À£À gÀªÀgÀÄ "¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CAwªÀÄ wæðUÉƼÀ¥ÀlÄÖ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ" JAzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°ègÀĪÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ EvÀåxÀðªÁV £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
7. Admittedly, the Appellate Authority - second respondent deferred the consideration of appeal of the petitioner only on the ground that a criminal case on the 7 same issue is pending consideration before the JMFC Court at Holenarasipura in C.C.No.389/2019. Deferring the consideration of appeal of the petitioner on the ground that criminal case is pending consideration is wholly unreasonable and would not stand to reason. The punishment is imposed on the petitioner after conducting an independent departmental enquiry. When a separate departmental enquiry is conducted, independent of criminal case, the Appellate Authority could not have deferred the consideration of appeal on the ground of pending criminal case. If the Appellate Authority was of the opinion that criminal case would come in the way of consideration of appeal, then on the same reason the Disciplinary Authority could not have imposed punishment. The Appellate Authority shall keep in mind that in a criminal case charge is to be proved strict proof of evidence would be required and in departmental enquiry charge is to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Further, outcome of the criminal case would have no bearing on the order of 8 the Disciplinary Authority, when the punishment is imposed by conducting an independent departmental enquiry.
8. Thus, I am of the view that endorsement dated 22.08.2019 issued by the second respondent is unsustainable. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The endorsement issued by the Appellate Authority bearing No.ªÀÄÄ.EA.(«)DPÁ/E«-05/ªÉÄʪÀ/2019-20/¹-247-51 dated 22.08.2019 [Annexure-P] is quashed.
(ii) The second respondent-Appellate
Authority is directed to consider the
appeal of the petitioner filed under
Annexure-N dated 16.08.2018 against
the order of punishment bearing
No.C.EA.(«)G¯É¤/¯ÉC/»¸À/2018-19 dated
21.06.2018 [Annexure-M] and pass
orders on merit.
(iii) Time for compliance: Six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.9
(iv) All the contentions of the parties on merits is kept open.
With the above, writ petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the writ petition, all the pending I.As stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC.