Dismissed

Sri Annadurai K v. Bharat Electronics Limited

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2021WA/1138/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal challenged Single Judge order dismissing petition for issuance of summons to witnesses in a departmental inquiry. The Court dismissed the appeal finding no grounds for interference under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted to appellant; liberty to question final outcome if natural justice is violated.

Sri Annadurai K Vs Bharat Electronics Limited — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.1138/2021 (S-DE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. ANNADURAI. K S/O LATE KUPPUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORK MEN OF BEL FACTORY, STAFF NO. 209768/JSO, IS/BG AND GENERAL SECRETARY OF BHARAT ELECTRONICS WORKERS UNITY FORUM (A REGISTERED TRADE UNION) & FORMER GENERAL SECRETARY OF BEL SC AND ST WELFARE ASSOCIATION, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU ALSO AT NO. 16, "AKSHAYANILAYA" RAMACHANDRAPURA, GANGAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 013 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. VEERABHADRAIAH ADV.)

¶11

¶12

AND:

¶13

BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED, (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE) NAGAVARA POST, OUTER RING ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 045, REP: BY ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR VIZ M.V. GOWTAMA

¶14

SRI. B.V. SUDHAKAR S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.279, 4^TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, 4^TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ISMAIL M. MUSBA ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2021 PASSED IN WP NO.1230/019 (S-DE), CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP NO.1230/2019 (S-DE) AS WELL AS IA NO.3/2021 FILED IN THE WP NO.1230/2019 FOR AMENDMENT OF WRIT PETITION AND GRAND RELIEF SOUGHT THEREIN.

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

JUDGEMENT

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

¶21

learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶22

The appellant has invoked Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 to prefer this intra Court appeal challenging the order dated 11.8.2021 passed in W.P. No.1230/2019.

¶23

The facts leading to the present appeal can be summarized as under:

¶24

The appellant is the employee of first respondent and facing disciplinary enquiry in respect of certain allegations leveled against him for alleged misconduct in the course of his employment.

¶25

During the course of disciplinary enquiry, the present appellant has filed an application to summon some witnesses in support of his defence. The Officer conducting the enquiry, in terms of order dated 19.12.2018, marked at

¶26

¶27

Annexure-P to the writ petition, dismissed the application on the premise that he has no authority to summon the witnesses. This order refusing to allow the application filed by the present appellant to summon the witnesses in the disciplinary enquiry is called in question by filing writ petition No.1230/2019.

¶28

Learned Single Judge after considering the materials on record, has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Section 5 of Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witness and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 (for short ' the Act, 1972') does not empower the enquiry officer to summon the witnesses unless there is a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1972. The learned single Judge has also referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of

¶29

(a)The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co., Limited Vs.S.C. Prasad and Another reported in (1969) 3

¶30

¶31

(b) Ruston and Hornsby (I) Ltd., Vs. T.B. Kadam reported in 1976 (3) SCC 71

¶32

(C) The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. Shri P.P.Mundhe reported in (1975) 2 SCC 661

¶33

and has come to the conclusion that it is for the party to bring the witness before the enquiry officer in support of his defence and not for the enquiry officer to summon the witnesses. The learned single Judge has also held that the application to summon the witnesses does not disclose the relevancy of evidence sought to be adduced from the witnesses named in the application. The learned single Judge has also noted that the enquiry officer had provided an opportunity to the delinquent employee to produce the witnesses before the enquiry officer. However, said opportunity is not availed by the present appellant. Learned single Judge referring to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of G.R. Venkateshwara Reddy Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation reported in ILR

¶34

¶35

1994 KAR 2736 has held that scope for interference in the interlocutory orders passed by the enquiry officer in a disciplinary enquiry is limited and has declined to grant the prayer made in the writ petition.

¶36

Though the writ petition is dismissed, in terms of last paragraph of the impugned order, learned single Judge has ensured that the petitioner will have the liberty of questioning the order refusing to summon the witnesses, on the grounds viz., violation of principles of natural justice and consequent prejudice caused, in case, if the final out come of the disciplinary enquiry goes against the present appellant.

¶37

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the enquiry is also concluded and based on the finding of the enquiry, show cause notice is issued to present appellant.

¶38

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No case is made out to exercise

¶39

¶40

the power under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

Sri Annadurai K v. Bharat Electronics Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Annadurai K v. Bharat Electronics Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S Rnr Constructions

The Managing Director Vs the Constituent Attorney

Dr Himanshu Dwivedi Vs National Medical Commission

Sri Ramesha Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Mallamma Vs the Range Forest Officer

Sri. Anwer Sab Vs State of Karnataka