Writ Petition No. 6528 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6528 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: RAMASWAMY M.L. S/O. LATE S. LAKSHMAN NAIK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS IN CHARGE CHIEF ENGINEER (NOW ON DEPUTATION TO KARNATAKA VIDYUTH KARKHANE), NO.2610, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026 AND R/AT NO.71/2, JOGUPALYA MAIN ROAD, G STREET, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-08 (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR BANGALORE -01 2. KARNATAKA VIDYUTH KARKHANE (KAVIKA) (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT) NO.2610, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA VIDYUTH KARKHANE (KAVIKA) NO.2610, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 4. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING COMPANY) KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE-09 BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; SMT. RAKSHITA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO REPATRIATION OF THE PETITIONER FROM RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 AND QUASH THE ORDER OF REPATRIATION BEARING NO.KAVIKA/MD/2024-25/2619, DATED 11.02.2025, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.KAVIKA/MD/2024-25/2619 dated 11.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 by which, the petitioner was purportedly repatriated to the respondent No.4. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to continue his service in the post of Executive Director. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 07.10.1992. After a slew of promotions, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 he was posted as in charge Chief Engineer with effect from 03.09.2024. Thereafter, he was deputed to the respondent No.2 as an Executive Director in terms of a notification dated 03.09.2024 and he reported to duty at the respondent No.2 on 13.09.2024. He contends that the post of Executive Director of respondent No.2 had to be filled up by deputation by the respondent No.1. He contends that on the directions of respondent No.1, the respondent No.4 deputed him to respondent No.2. (ii) He contends that after he reported to duty at respondent No.2, there was a manifold increase in the production of transformers and he also instilled discipline in the workforce, as a result of which, there was stiff resistance by two employees' unions of respondent No.2 namely, 'Kavika Labour Union' and 'Kavika Officers' Association'. The Kavika Officers' Association submitted a representation dated 23.01.2025 to the respondent No.3 making unfounded allegations that the petitioner had delayed the tender process for procurement of materials for manufacturing transformers. On the same day, the Kavika Labour Union also filed a complaint with the respondent No.3 making similar allegations - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 against the petitioner. He contends that during his tenure as an Executive Director, of respondent No.2, he was also appointed by respondent No.1 as a Director on the Board of respondent No.2 on 04.01.2025. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.3 relenting to the complaints lodged by the unions passed an order dated 11.02.2025 repatriating the services of the petitioner to the respondent No.4. (iii) The petitioner contends that during the process of scrutinising the bids of the tenderers, he recommended rejection of a bid submitted by M/s. Power Core Industries India Limited for supply of 3,000 numbers of core assembly components required for manufacture of transformers. The petitioner recommended for cancellation of the tender itself after noticing the audit observation and also after making enquiries about the prevailing prices of the core assembly components in the local market. He contends that within three days from the date of making such a recommendation, he was repatriated to the respondent No.3. He contends that the respondent No.3 could not have any grievance against the petitioner, as the records itself spoke about the increase in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 production of transformers from the month of September, 2025 and thereafter till January, 2025. (iv) It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 had no power or authority to repatriate him back to the respondent No.4, as it is the respondent No.1 which had the authority to depute or repatriate him. It is also contended that as per C & R Rules of respondent No.2, it is the respondent No.1 which is the authority empowered to fill up the posts of Managing Director of respondent No.3 and Executive Director of respondent No.2 by deputation. 3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner elaborating the above contentions, submitted that the petitioner is deputed by the State Government which is evident from the note sheets which were approved by the State Government. He contends that when the proposal to approve the posting of the petitioner as the Executive Director of respondent No.2 was forwarded by the respondent No.3, the same was approved by the Energy Minister of the State Government. Therefore, it should be construed that the petitioner was deputed by the respondent No.1 as the Executive Director of the respondent No.2. Thus, he contends - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 that the respondent No.3 has no power or authority to repatriate the services of the petitioner back to the respondent No.4, as it is only the State Government which is empowered to do so. (ii) He also contends that the repatriation of the petitioner by the respondent No.3 is hit by malafides and is driven by malice, in as much as, the petitioner came in the way of accepting an inflated bid submitted by a bidder. He therefore, contends that the impugned order of repatriation of the petitioner is not bonafide, but is based on other considerations. He also contends that the order repatriating the petitioner itself is stigmatic in the sense, it referred to the two complaints lodged by the employees union and officers' association and therefore, the respondent No.3 was bound to conduct a semblance of an enquiry before repatriating the services of the petitioner. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and another Vs. V.Ramakrishnan and others - (2005) 8 SCC 394 to contend that though a deputationist has no indefeasible right to continue in a post but when the tenure of the deputation is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 specified, the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such grounds, such as, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance and that the deputationist can question an order of reversion when the same is malafide. He therefore, contends that the impugned order of repatriation is driven by malice and therefore, the same has to be set at naught. (iii) He also contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Director of the Board of respondent No.2 and therefore, the respondent No.3 cannot repatriate the services of the petitioner, as this would amount to removing the petitioner from the post of Director of the Board of the respondent No.2. He contends that the respondent No.3 has no authority or power to remove the petitioner from the Board of Directors. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment of
Legal Reasoning
a division bench of this Court in W.A.No.3270/2005. 4. (i) The writ petition is opposed by the respondents who have filed statement of objections contending inter alia that a person on deputation has no vested right to continue in the deputed post or to seek absorption, but can be repatriated to his parent department. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 (ii) It is contended that the impugned order is a case of repatriation simpliciter issued purely for administrative reasons and without any stigma or adverse remarks and therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner is an officer of the respondent No.4 and holds the substantive post as Superintendent Engineer and was working in the Human Resources Wing of Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited. The respondent No.4 issued a notification on 03.09.2024 and posted the petitioner on deputation on temporary basis as the Executive Director of respondent No.2. It is contended that the notification dated 03.09.2024 made it apparent that the deputation was on in charge basis to carryout day to day activities associated with the post of Executive Director. (iii) It is also contended that posting of the petitioner was done in the administrative interest of the respondent No.4 and for all practical purposes was temporary and could be withdrawn any time without giving any notice to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had accepted that his posting as the Executive Director of respondent No.2 was temporary and based upon such acceptance, he was deputed at - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has admitted that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.1 as a Director on the Board of respondent No.2. It is contended that on 11.02.2025, the respondent No.3 passed an order repatriating the services of the petitioner to the respondent No.4 on administrative grounds and in the interest of organization and not due to any adverse remarks. (iv) It is also contended that the impugned order of repatriation is not based on the complaints lodged by the labour union or the officers' association. Further, it is contended that the tender for supply of core assembly components for manufacture of transformers was retendered and the contract was not awarded to M/s. Power Core Industries India Limited, but was awarded to someone else. Therefore, it is contended that the allegation of the petitioner that he was targeted for recommending the rejection of the bid of M/s. Power Core Industries India Limited is without any basis. 5. A rejoinder is filed to the statement of objections wherein it is contended that the respondent No.3 had addressed a letter dated 03.02.2025 to the respondent No.1 requesting it to remove the petitioner from the post of Director - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 of its Board of Directors. It is stated that even in this letter similar allegations were made against the petitioner that certain complaints were received by the labour union and officer association against him. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order of repatriation of the petitioner was actuated by malice. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not deputed by the State Government, but was deputed by the respondent No.4 is denied. He has contended that the respondent No.4 has no authority to depute his employees to the respondent No.2 on its own, unless it is directed by the Government to do so and that the said procedure was adopted by the respondent No.4 which was approved by the respondent No.1. It is contended that since the petitioner was deputed to the post of Executive Director, the respondent No.1 appointed the petitioner to the Board of Directors of the respondent No.2. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order repatriating the services of the petitioner is improper and is driven by other considerations and the same has to be set at naught. 6. The learned senior counsel representing the respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that in view of the various vacancies in the post of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 Chief Engineers in the State, the respondent No.4 felt it appropriate to promote the Superintendent Engineers to the post of Chief Engineers and place them on in charge basis. He contends that the petitioner who was also the Chief Engineer was placed in charge of the post of Executive Director of respondent No.2. He does not dispute the fact that the post of Executive Director of respondent No.2 has to be filled up by deputation by the State Government. However, he contends that this was only an in charge arrangement, which is evident from the order dated 03.09.2024 itself. Thus, he contends that the petitioner was not deputed in the true sense of the term, but he was only placed in charge and hence, he was liable to be sent back to his parent department. He also contends that the petitioner has no right to continue in the said post and therefore, he has no locus to challenge the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 also reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner is not deputed to the post as contended, but was placed in charge and therefore, he has no right to challenge the order sending him back to the respondent No.4. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4. 9. It is indisputable that as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of respondent No.2, the post of Executive Director of respondent No.2 had to be filled up by respondent No.1 by deputation. Contrarily, the petitioner was deputed by respondent No.4 as Executive Director of respondent No.2 in terms of the order dated 03.09.2024. 10. A perusal of the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by respondent No.4 shows that the petitioner was deputed as in charge of post of Executive Director of the respondent No.2. This order was subject to certain conditions and condition No.2 specifically provided that the in charge arrangement was for administrative purposes and was purely temporary in nature and could be withdrawn without any notice. The petitioner has accepted the posting and has reported to duty as the Executive Director of the respondent No.2. Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioner was conscious of the fact that his - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 posting as the Executive Director of respondent No.2 was temporary in nature. 11. The note sheet placed on record by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 shows that the proposal of placing the Chief Engineers in various posts on in charge basis, was placed before the State Government and the State Government had approved the same. Therefore, it can be held that the petitioner was not deputed by the respondent No.1 but for administrative reasons was placed by respondent No.4 as in charge of the post of Executive Director of respondent No.2. 12. It appears that the respondent No.3 was directed by the respondent No.4 to return the services of the petitioner to the respondent No.4 and accordingly, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 had no authority or power to send him back to respondent No.4 deserves to be rejected. In order to know the circumstances, under which, the respondent No.4 had directed the respondent No.3 to repatriate the services of the petitioner, this Court called upon the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 to file an affidavit mentioning the circumstances under which it directed the respondent No.3 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 to return the services of the petitioner to the respondent No.4. In response to this, an affidavit is filed, by the Managing Director of the respondent No.4, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: "3. I submit that pursuant to the above Government approval, the petitioner was placed as in-charge Chief Engineer and was posted as Executive Director of Respondent No.2 on deputation. I submit that the in-charge arrangement in this case was to carry out the day- to-day work associated with the particular post. I further submit that this deputation was to meet the administrative exigencies of Respondent No.2. 4. I submit that Respondent No.3, on 11.02.2025, discussed with me on the continuation of the petitioner in respondent No.2 and requested me to withdraw his services as the same was no longer required in the interest of administration in the said industry. Considering the said request, I agreed for repatriation of the petitioner and relieving of the petitioner from the post of Executive Director. Accordingly vide office memo dated 11.02.2025, respondent No.3 relieved the petitioner from respondent No.2 with immediate effect and directed him to report to his parent department i.e., respondent No.4." - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 13. Though, there is some discordance between what is mentioned in the impugned order as well as in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, it can safely be construed that there was a discussion between respondent No.3 and 4 for discontinuation of the services of the petitioner at the respondent No.2 and hence, the order passed by the respondent No.3 cannot be upset on the ground that the respondent No.3 did not have the power to repatriate the services of the petitioner. 14. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Union of India Vs. V.Ramakrishnan, referred supra that a deputationist can challenge an order of repatriation, if it is actuated by malice, would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, as this Court has found that the petitioner was not deputed by respondent No.1 to the post of Executive Director, but was placed as in charge of the post of Executive Director. 15. Similarly, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.A.3270/2005 may not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, as in that case the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15970 WP No. 6528 of 2025 question was whether the Managing Director of the Board can remove another Director of the Board. The division bench held that it is the Chairman of the Board who alone is entitled to remove a member. In the case on hand, the petitioner is already removed from the post of Director of the respondent No.2 by the respondent No.1 and the issues involved in this writ petition is different from the issues that were involved in W.A.No.3270/2005. 16. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 17. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do no survive for
Decision
consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20