Writ Petition No. 54574 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 54574 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN: H S SRINATH S/O LATE SRI H R S IYER AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS FORMERLY WORKING AS METER READER NOW RETIRED FROM THE SERVICES RESIDING AT NO.2, 1ST CROSS, PARK ROAD, BEHIND S.I.T. SCHOOL BALEPET, BENGALURU-53. (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.) …PETITIONER AND: Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-01. 2. THE BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-01. 3. THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. & HRD) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 001. 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) COMMERCIAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, BANGALORE RURAL CIRCLE BESCOM, 1ST FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, KENGERI, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-60. 5. SMT. H S KAMALA MAJOR ENQUIRY OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO.41, ‘ANIKETHANA’ SOUTH 3RD CROSS ROAD KUVEMPU NAGAR, 1ST STAGE MYSORE-23. (BY SRI.S SRIRANGA, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI ARIHANTH R SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5) …RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER; QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 27.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-3 [ANNEXURE-H] AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL BESIDES BEING VIOLATIVE OR ARTICLES 14, 21 AND 300-A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a retired Meter Reader of the respondent-BESCOM is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the endorsement bearing No.KPTCL/B54/7011/2007-08 dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-H) wherein, petitioner’s request to settle the pensionary benefits is rejected in view of the pending departmental proceedings and the petitioner has also sought for a direction to restrain respondent Nos.2 and 3 from holding departmental enquiry in terms of charge sheet bearing No.KPTCL/B54/7011/2007-08 dated 04.05.2009 (Annexure-A) and also for a direction to settle all consequential benefits. 2.
Facts
The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner was working as Meter Reader in the respondent-BESCOM and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2013. While the petitioner was in service, a charge memo dated 04.05.2009 (Annexure-A) was issued initiating joint - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 enquiry against the petitioner as well as two others. On the said charge memo, an enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondent-BESCOM and the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.03.2010 holding that the charge has not been substantiated by acceptable and complete documentary evidence. The loss cannot be attributed solely on the alleged alterations made by delinquent-1 in the record, and the accountability of others is required to be investigated. Further, the report would also reveal that the evidence produced is not sufficient to hold delinquents 2 and 3 in the alleged misuse and needs further investigation by appropriate expert agencies. As no action was taken on the said enquiry report, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.31159/2013 seeking for a direction to consider his representation and to settle his pensionary benefits. This Court, by its order dated 30.03.2017 disposed of the writ petition, with a direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter, within a period of 3 months. Based on the said direction, Annexure-H endorsement dated 27.10.2017 was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 issued to the petitioner stating that the request for passing final orders sanctioning pensionary benefits cannot be considered, in view of the pendency of the departmental enquiry proceedings and in terms of regulations. Thereafter, under order at Annexure-K dated 16.11.2017, the respondent-Disciplinary Authority passed order under Regulation 11(A) of KEB Employees (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for
Legal Reasoning
this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri.Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel Sri.Sriranga along - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 with learned counsel Sri.Sumana Naganand for
Arguments
short “1987 Regulations”), appointing Smt.H.S.Kamala, Retired Principal District and Sessions Judge as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry and to give a finding on each charge. Questioning the said endorsement rejecting the request to pass final order and to settle his pension as well as for a direction to restrain the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from holding departmental enquiry, petitioner is before
Decision
respondents No.1 to 5. Perused the writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge memo dated 04.05.2009 and till this date, even after retirement, the enquiry is not concluded. Hence, he submits that enquiry proceedings need to be terminated. Further, learned counsel would submit that the respondent-Disciplinary Authority failed to take action on the enquiry report submitted in the year 2010 itself. Learned counsel Sri.Subramanya Bhat submits that under Regulation 11(A) of 1987 Regulations, on receipt of enquiry report, it is open for the Disciplinary Authority by recording reasons in writing, order for further enquiry or disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. Further, learned counsel would submit that Regulation 11(A) of 1987 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 Regulations would not permit or empower the respondent to order for fresh enquiry on the charge memo, on which enquiry is complete. Learned counsel would further submit that in view of long lapse of time, the petitioner would be entitled for release of his pension and pensionary benefits. No fault could be attributed to the petitioner for delay in the enquiry. But it is the respondents who are wholly responsible for dragging on the proceedings for more than 15 years. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.Sriranga appearing for the respondents would justify the action of the respondents in passing order at Annexure-K dated 16.11.2017, appointing the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry and submit report on each charge against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would submit that reading of the entire order would indicate that the respondent-Disciplinary Authority acted in terms of Regulation 11(A) of 1987 Regulations and the order at - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 Annexure-K shall be read as an order for further enquiry. Learned senior counsel would further submit that Regulation 11(A) of 1987 Regulations empowers the Disciplinary Authority to order for further enquiry and accordingly, in exercise of the said power, order at Annexure-K dated 16.11.2017 is passed. Learned senior counsel would also submit that in terms of Regulation 172 of 1987 Regulations, the petitioner is entitled for provisional pension during the pendency of departmental proceedings and the said provisional pension is being paid to the petitioner from the date of his retirement. Thus, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for consideration: (a) Whether the petitioner has made out a case for quashing the endorsement dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure-H) and for release of pensionary benefits?; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 (b) Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to restrain respondent Nos.2 and 3 from holding departmental enquiry on the charge sheet dated 04.05.2009 (Annexure-A)? 7. Answer to the above points would be in the negative and partly affirmative respectively for the following reasons: Point No.2 would be taken up at the first instance, since answer on the said point would depend on the relief to be granted on point No.1. 8. No doubt, while the petitioner was in service, charge memo dated 04.05.2009 (Annexure-A) was issued against the petitioner and two others. A detailed enquiry was conducted and Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.03.2010 (Annexure-B). Findings of the Enquiry Officer reads as follows: (1) The charge that alterations made in the records resulted in the total financial loss of Rs.92,17,130-00 has not been substantiated by acceptable and complete documentary evidence. The value of material amounting to loss has to be - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 reworked with corrected records. The loss cannot be attributed solely to the alleged alterations made by delinquent-1 in the record, and the accountability of others is required to be investigated. (2) The evidence produced is not sufficient to hold delinquents 2 and 3 in the alleged misuse of 58,000 mts of rabbit conductors since the denial by these delinquents of the identity of their signatures may need further investigation by appropriate expert agencies.” A reading of the above makes it abundantly clear that Enquiry Officer has categorically held that the charge has not been substantiated by acceptable and complete documentary evidence. The loss cannot be attributed solely on the alleged alterations made by delinquent-1 in the record and the accountability of others is required to be investigated. Further, the Enquiry Officer has held that the evidence produced is not sufficient to hold delinquents 2 and 3 in the alleged misuse and needs further investigation by appropriate expert agencies. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 9. Regulation 11(A) of 1987 Regulations contemplates action on the enquiry report. The said provision reads as follows: 11(A). ACTION ON THE INQUIRY REPORT: (1) The ‘Disciplinary Authority’, if it is not itself the ‘Inquiring Authority’ may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the ‘Inquiring Authority’ for further inquiry and report and the ‘Inquiring Authority’ shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Regulation-11 as far as may be. (2) The ‘Disciplinary Authority’ shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the ‘Inquiring Authority’ on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the ‘Disciplinary Authority’ having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the option that one or more of the penalties specified in Regulation-9 should be imposed on the Corporation employee, it shall, not-withstanding anything contained in Regulation-12, make an order imposing such penalty. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 10. In terms of sub-Regulation(1) of Regulation 11(A) of 1987 Regulations the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to remit the case to the Enquiring Authority for further enquiry on recording reasons and the Enquiry Officer, thereupon shall proceed to hold further enquiry according to the provisions of Regulation 11 of 1987 Regulations as for as may be. Sub-Regulation(2) of Regulation 11(A) of 1987 Regulations empowers the Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the findings of the Enquiring Authority on any article of charge by recording its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. 11. The submission of the learned senior counsel Sri.Sriranga for respondents and statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents would indicate that the respondents exercised their power under Regulation 11(A)(1) of 1987 Regulations. If that is so, the order ought to have been for further enquiry and not for fresh - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 enquiry. The operative portion of order at Annexure-K dated 16.11.2017 reads as follows: “PÀ«ªÀÄA £ËPÀgÀgÀ (ªÀ.².¤ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄÃ) ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ 1987 gÀ ¤§AzsÀ£É 10 (J) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ, ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ.¸ÀA), PÀ«¥À椤, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²¸ÀÄÛ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ, ¤§AzsÀ£É 11(2) gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ²æêÀÄw ºÉZï.J¸ï. PÀªÀÄ®, ¥ÀæzsÁ£À f¯Áè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀvÀæ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÀÄ (¤ªÀÈvÀÛ), £ÀA.41, C¤PÉÃvÀ£À, zÀQët 3£Éà CqÀØ gÀ¸ÉÛ, PÀĪÉA¥ÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, 1£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁV £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DgÉÆævÀ £ËPÀgÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Àqɹ ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É vÀªÀÄä ªÀgÀ¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ vÀéjvÀªÁV «ZÁgÀuÁ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F PÀbÉÃjUÉ »A¢gÀÄV¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.” A reading of the above order clearly indicates that the Enquiry Officer is appointed to conduct enquiry afresh and to give findings on each article of charge, which is not permissible in terms of Regulation 11(A)(1) of 1987 Regulations. The respondent-authorities could proceed against the petitioner only in terms of Regulation 11(A)(1) or (2) of 1987 Regulations. Further, it is made clear that - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 Regulation 11(A)(1) of 1987 Regulations would not permit the respondents to direct Enquiry Officer for fresh enquiry on the charge memo on which, enquiry is already completed. 12. Regulation 172 of 1987 Regulations permits the respondent-Board to withholding the pension or pensionary benefits during the pendency of the departmental enquiry proceedings. Since the departmental enquiry is pending and it is not concluded by passing final order, the petitioner would not be entitled for settlement of pensionary benefits for the present. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the following order: (i) The writ petition insofar as prayer (a) is rejected. The writ petition insofar as prayer (b) is allowed in part. (ii) Annexure-K order bearing No.KPTCL/B54/7011/ 2007-08 dated 16.11.2017 is quashed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are restrained from holding fresh - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:4492 WP No. 54574 of 2017 departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the charge memo dated 04.05.2009 (Annexure-A). (iii) The respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on the charge memo at Annexure-A dated 04.05.2009 in terms of Regulation 11(A) of 1987 Regulations, in the light of the observations made above. (iv) The above process shall be completed within four months and if the respondents fail to complete the process within the above period, the petitioner would be entitled for consideration of settling his pensionary benefits. With the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms