Writ Petition No. 57642 of 2017 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 57642 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN MR. KARAN KUMAR SON OF ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT B-943, AVANTIKA SECTOR-1, ROHINI DELHI-110085 (BY SMT. LASHA KALAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ANNAPOORNA S., ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 REGISTERED OFFICE AT OUTER RING ROAD, NAGAVARA BANGALORE-560045 REPRESENTED BY HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA., ADVOCATE) …. RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND/OR ANY SUCH/OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO TRANSFER THE BOND TO THE ONGC AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any such/other writ or order directing Respondent to transfer the bond to the ONGC; Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any such/other writ or order directing Respondent to refund the ‘bond amount’ unjustifiably and illegally retained by the Respondent; iii. Grant costs and pass such other/further order including the grant of interest on and damages to the petitioner, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Delhi and a graduate of IIT Patna in Computer Science Engineering who joined the respondent, Bharat Electronics Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as “BEL”) on 25.11.2015 under probation. A provisional letter of appointment had been issued on 10.09.2015. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR 3. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner signed a proforma of a service agreement, agreeing to the various conditions that had been imposed, including the requirement of the petitioner to undergo a training period for six months and, upon successful completion of the training period, to join the services of the BEL. It was also indicated that there would be a mandatory bond period of three years and in the event of the petitioner ceasing to be a probationer or giving up training, the petitioner would refund to BEL the expenditure that may be incurred in connection with the training, which was subject to a maximum of Rs.3 lakhs. 4. On 05.05.2016, the petitioner received an offer of appointment from Bharat Broadband Network Limited (for short herein after referred to as “BBNL”), another public-sector undertaking. The petitioner claims that after discussing with the officers of BEL, he had submitted a resignation on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR 10.05.2016, so as to enable the transfer of the bond held by BEL to BBNL. The petitioner was thereafter informed that in order to process his resignation, he would be required to make payment of a sum of Rs.3,23,969/-, which included a training bond amount of Rs.2,95,000/-, and the said amount was required to be deposited immediately. On such a deposit, the resignation letter would be processed. 5. While things stood thus, the BBNL did not respond to the request made by BEL or the Petitioner, and the Petitioner received an offer from Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “ONGC”), for a position of Materials Management
Legal Reasoning
Officer. In this background, the petitioner wrote to BBNL on 08.07.2016, stating that he would not be able to join BBNL and requested that BBNL inform BEL about the withdrawal of his application. Hence, BBNL, vide its letter dated July 11, 2016, informed BEL that the candidate had withdrawn his acceptance - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR of the offer of appointment. Thereafter, on the very same date, the petitioner wrote to BEL, informing them of the resignations submitted on 10.05.2016 and the request made to transfer the service bond to BBNL, which process had not been completed; as such, he had withdrawn his candidature. 6. He further informed BEL about the offer made by ONGC and therefore requested that the service bond be transferred to ONGC. In its letter dated 19.07.2016, BEL responded to the petitioner, indicating that since his last working day with BEL was on 20.05.2016, the subsequent request made on 11.07.2016 could not be accepted, and the transfer of bond to ONGC, having been examined, could not be agreed upon. 7. Thereafter, on 19.07.2016, BEL wrote to the petitioner informing him that if his resignation were to be considered and accepted, he would have to make payment of sum of Rs.2,95,000/- towards the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR breach of service contract. The petitioner sought the details of the bank account of BEL on 21.07.2016, which were furnished on the same date. On 22.07.2016, the petitioner transferred Rs.5,000/- as a test and thereafter on the very same day transferred the balance Rs.2,90,000/-. In pursuance of which, a relieving letter was issued by BEL on 22.07.2016. 8. The petitioner thereafter joined ONGC and filed various applications seeking a refund of the monies, and thereafter filed various applications under the RTI Act, causing queries as to why the said amount has not been refunded, and it is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 9.
Legal Reasoning
The submission of Ms.Annapoorna S., learned counsel for the petitioner, is that; 9.1. Respondent-BEL being Public Sector Undertaking (for short hereinafter referred to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR as “PSU”) so also BBNL and ONGC being PSUs as per the personal policies as per DPE guidelines, more particularly Clause (b) of Rule 27, if an employee of a Central Public Enterprise were to secure employment with another public enterprise with proper permission, then the bond could be transferred. As such, she submits that the training and/or the employment of the petitioner, continuing to enure to the benefit of another PSU, namely ONGC, BEL, who had agreed to transfer the bond to BBNL, ought to have transferred the same to ONGC without calling upon the petitioner to make payment of any monies. 9.2. The petitioner, being forced and constrained to make payment of the amounts in order to secure a relieving letter, having requested a refund of the monies, BEL ought to have refunded those monies. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR 9.3. She submits that BEL is not entitled to retain the said monies inasmuch as there is no breach as such committed by the petitioner. The petitioner, having joined the services of another PSU, ONGC, and having continued to serve ONGC for the bond period of three years, there being no default on the part of the petitioner, the bond would lapse with the expiry of three years and, as such, could not be invoked. 9.4. The petitioner was constrained to make payment of the amounts as demanded by BEL in order to secure a relieving letter. The same cannot be held against the petitioner, in fact, she submitted that the BEL, being in a dominant position, has prevailed upon the petitioner to make payment of the amounts. 9.5. She therefore submitted that the writ petition should be allowed and a direction issued to BEL to refund the amount deposited. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR 10. Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda., learned counsel for BEL would submit that; 10.1. The petitioner made a fraudulent representation regarding not having appeared for any other interview with any other PSU or similar entity. The interviews attended by the petitioner with BBNL and ONGC were prior to that with BEL i.e., prior to the appointment of the petitioner by BEL. 10.2. The offer letters of BBNL and ONGC were received after the petitioner joined BEL. At the time of joining BEL, the petitioner had given an affidavit of undertaking, wherein the petitioner had categorically indicated that they had not attended any other interview. This statement being false on its face, the BEL initially, when the petitioner requested the bond to be transferred to BBNL, acceded to the same. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR 10.3. When a subsequent request was made for transfer of the bond to ONGC, realising that the petitioner is misusing the opportunities, BEL refused to transfer the said bond and had called upon the petitioner to make payment of the amounts to provide a relieving letter. 10.4. He therefore submits that they cannot be an order passed against BEL directing BEL to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner having availed the benefit of such deposit by receiving a relieving letter and joining ONGC. 11. Heard Ms.Annapoorna S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for BEL. Perused papers. 12. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is; “Whether BEL could have refused to transfer the bond amount and/or refund the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR amounts covered under the bond in the present case”. 13. The dates are not in dispute. The petitioner had joined BEL on 25.11.2015, he received the offer from BBNL on 05.05.2016, and tendered resignation to BEL on 10.05.2016. The demand for the bond amount was made by BEL on 19.05.2016, pursuant to which, on 28.05.2016, no response was received from BBNL. On 28.05.2016, BEL wrote to BBNL agreeing to transfer the bond. On 05.07.2016, the petitioner received an offer from ONGC. On 08.07.2016, the petitioner wrote a letter to BBNL withdrawing his candidature. On 19.07.2016, BEL called upon the petitioner to make payment of the bond amount for processing his resignation, which was deposited on 22.07.2016. 14. What is required to be considered by this Court is the factum of BEL being ready to transfer the bond to BBNL and thereafter having refused to transfer the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR same to ONGC on the ground that the first request was accepted in a lenient manner and the second request was rejected since the petitioner had allegedly made false statements. 15. Even though the petitioner had made a false declaration that he had not attended any interview, this fact was already to the knowledge of BEL when BEL agreed to transfer the bond amount to BBNL vide its letter dated 28.05.2016. The offer of appointment made by BBNL was to the knowledge of BEL, the said offer categorically indicated that an advertisement had been published on 29.09.2014 pursuant to which the petitioner had appeared for the interview which was before joining BEL, despite which BEL had agreed to transfer the bond amount. 16. This aspect is also categorically established by the reply issued by the BEL in pursuance of an application filed by the petitioner under the RTI Act on 20.7.2016, wherein it has been categorically - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR stated that the petitioner having submitted his resignation letter on 10.05.2016, his resignation and transfer of bond was processed and approved immediately. The request for transfer of bond to ONGC, having been made on 11.07.2016 after his resignation from BEL, was not agreed to. 17. On enquiry with Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for BEL, as to whether the bond had been transferred to BBNL, he submits that since the candidature of the petitioner had been withdrawn from BBNL before the transfer could be made, the transfer was not affected. 18. In that view of the matter, it is seen that BEL had agreed to and was to transfer the bond to BBNL, having agreed to do so, despite the alleged misstatement or fraud said to have been committed by the petitioner. It was only when a further request was made for the transfer of the bond to ONGC that - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR this request was rejected on the grounds that it was made after the petitioner's resignation. 19. The aspect of transfer of bond would arise only upon the employee's resignation, as submitted by the petitioner, after resignation or at the latest, simultaneously with the resignation. Therefore, such a transfer cannot be sought prior to resignation. 20. If that be so, the reasons provided by BEL that the request for transfer of bond to ONGC was not accepted, since the petitioner had resigned from BEL on 10.05.2016, do not stand the test of reason. If BEL was ready to transfer the bond on 10.05.2016, after the resignation was submitted, the request made on 11.07.2016 for transfer of the bond could not have been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had already resigned from BEL. This reason provided by BEL cannot be accepted, nor is it countenanced under any law. 21. In that view of the matter, I pass the following; - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:25024 WP No. 57642 of 2017 HC-KAR i. ii.
Decision
ORDER The Writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued, directing Respondent No.2 to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioner, namely Rs.2,95,000/-, to the petitioner within four weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of the order. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79