Dismissed

M/S Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Sri K Balaraju

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2021WA/2549/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed this writ appeal arising from an order directing the employer to restore the employee to his General Manager post. The bench held that once a demotion for a fixed period expires, the employee is automatically entitled to promotion without holding a fresh committee or satisfying promotional criteria again.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the prior order directing the employer to restore the employee's post and calculate arrears stands upheld.

M/S Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Sri K… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.2549/2019 (S-PRO)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S.MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD.,

¶11

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PAPER TOWN

¶12

BHADRAVATHI-577 302

¶13

GENERAL MANAGER

¶14

MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD., PAPER TOWN BHADRAVATHI-577 302 NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI.M.R.C.RAVI, ADV.,)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI.K.BALARAJU S/O.SRI GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 1^ST MAIN ROAD V.R.LAYOUT, GOKULA, MATHIKERE BANGALORE-560 054

¶19

… RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI.P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADV.,)

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.21557/2014.

¶22

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The present appeal is arising out of the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.21557/2014 (Shri K.Balaraji v. M/s. Mysore Paper Mills Limited).

¶26

The facts of the case reveals that the respondent before this Court was appointed as Joint General Manager on 27.02.1997 and was confirmed as General Manager (HRD&A) with effect from 01.11.1997. By virtue of his service record he was promoted as General Manager(HRD & A) and was confirmed as General Manager (HRD & A) with effect from 11.03.1999. While he was working as General Manager there was an allegation of misconduct which was in respect of intentionally and falsely certifying the particulars of salary in respect of 27 employees for the purpose of securing loan from Allahabad Bank and a show cause notice was issued on 24.08.2002. The respondent submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 29.09.2002 and the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the reply of the respondent, directed for a domestic inquiry vide order dated 05.10.2002.

¶27

¶28

It is also pertinent to note that the respondent-

¶29

employee was on leave for 38 days and thereafter went on long leave from 12.12.2002 to 04.01.2004 and the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on 07.02.2004. The copy of said report was furnished to the employee on 08.04.2004 and as per Rules governing, the field the Board has passed an order on 22.05.2005 demoting the respondent-employee from the post of General Manager to the post of Joint General Manager by inflicting a penalty keeping in view the Rule-28.2.4 of the MPM Officers Service, Conduct and Appeal Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules 1998’). The employee in question preferred a Review Application before the Board dated 15.03.2006 and the same was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Board, the respondent-employee has preferred a writ petition i.e., WP No.11123/2005 and the same was partly allowed by this Court on 26.02.2008 modifying the order of punishment for one year by taking into account Rule 28.2.2 of the Rules 1988. After expiry of period of one year, the respondent-employee requested the company to grant him promotion to the post of General Manager. However, the same was not done and therefore, the respondent-employee filed a Writ Petition i.e., WP No.17731/2010 and the learned Single

¶30

¶31

judge has dismissed the petition by an order dated 06.07.2010 with an observation that the employer must await a decision from the employer for promotion as General Manager as and when he becomes eligible. Aggrieved by the said order, a writ appeal was preferred in the matter i.e., WA No.3075/2010 and the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ appeal by an order dated 22.10.2013 directing the employer to consider the representations submitted by the employee within a period pf three months. In light of the directions, the representations of the employee were rejected giving rise to the writ petition i.e., WP.No.21557/2014. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. Paragraphs-7, 8, and 9 of the order of the learned Single judge reads as under;

¶32

“7. Question for consideration in this petition is ‘Whether petitioner is entitled to restore his post to the post of General Manager as and when one year is completed from the date of modification of penalty order dated 22.02.2005 by the learned single Judge in its order dated 26.02.2008 or not?’

¶33

Rule 28.2 Major penalties reads as under:

¶34

28.2.2 – Demotion to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in a time scale for a specified period.

¶35

28.2.4 - Demotion to lower post or grade with permanent reduction in rank.

¶36

¶37

8. Rule 28.2. of Rules 1998 provides for two types of demotion : one is for specified period and the other one is permanent. No doubt, respondents have imposed the penalty under Rule 28.2.4 i.e. permanent and it has been modified by this Court on 26.02.2008for a one year period, which is for specific period. Respondents have accepted the order dated 26.02.2008. Once the order of penalty has been modified and modified from Rule 28.2.4 to that of 28.2.2 by judicial order, in such an event, whatever the position held by the petitioner will have to be restored, there is no question of subjecting petitioner for all those criteria laid down for promotion to the post of General Manager. Respondents have not pointed out any statutory rules stating in support of Annexure-Q that petitioner shall have to be subjected to all the criteria for promotion to the post of General Manager once again for the year 2010 despite he was subjected to all the criteria in the year 1999 and promoted to the post of General Manager. In view of these facts and circumstances, there is non -application of mind in passing Annexure-Q in not appreciating the two issues namely petitioner was already promoted to the post of General Manager and penalty has been modified to a particular period. Therefore, question of once again subjecting petitioner to fulfill the criteria laid down for the post of General Manager do not arise. Accordingly Annexure-Q is set aside. Petition stands allowed.

¶38

9. It is learnt that petitioner is stated to have retired from service on 31.12.2010. Therefore, respondents are hereby directed to restore the position of the petitioner to the post of General Manager after one year from the date

¶39

¶40

of penalty and to calculate and disburse arrears of pay for the post of General Manager from the date of lapse of one year penalty. Further, if petitioner is entitled to difference of retrial benefit in the cadre of General Manager, even the same be calculated. Such calculation shall be made and amount shall be disbursed within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order along with interest @ 6%.”

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order which was challenged in the writ petition vide order dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure-Q) to the writ petition. The appellant-employer before this Court has rejected the case of the respondent for grant of promotion holding that he has not secured minimum qualifying marks during the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 besides other reasons also. The learned Single Judge has set aside the aforesaid order and has held that the employee was entitled for promotion after expiry of one year period.

¶42

The basic controversy involved in the present case is whether the appellant-employer was required to hold Departmental Promotion Committee afresh to consider the case of the respondent-employer for promotion after expiry of one year or whether it was an automatic on completion of one year’s period. The statutory provisions as contained under the

¶43

¶44

Rules 1998, governing the field in respect of major penalties

¶45

are detailed as under:

¶46

“28.2.1 Suspension on loss of pay and allowances

¶47

subject to Rule 30(4) hereunder.

¶48

28.2.2 Demotion to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in a time scale for a specified period.

¶49

28.2.3 Compulsory retirement.

¶50

28.2.4 Demotion to lower post or grade with

¶51

permanent reduction in rank

¶52

28.2.5 Removal or discharge from service which shall not be a bar for future employment

¶53

28.2.6 Dismissal from service which shall be a

¶54

disqualification for future employment.

¶55

In the present case, the petitioner was earlier

¶56

granted punishment under Rule 28.2.4 which means demotion

¶57

to lower post or grade with permanent reduction in rank. The order passed under first round of litigation makes it very clear that the learned Single Judge while deciding WP No.11123/2005 dated 26.02.2008 has modified the punishment and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in paragrapshs-6 reads as under:

¶58

“It is not in dispute that on 27.02.1997 petitioner was appointed as Joint General Manager. Within a period of two years, the petitioner earned promotion as General Manager on account of good work that he has done. Further, the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order

¶59

¶60

of penalty observed that the charge of personal gain against the petitioner as not proved. Further, it has come on record that on account of mis-conduct committed by the petitioner, the respondent-Company has not suffered any financial loss. After the order of penalty, the respondents have entrusted additional responsibilities of disciplinary powers to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the penalty levied by the Disciplinary Authority shocks my conscious and appears to be on higher side. In order to balance the interest of both the petitioner and the respondent-Management, the penalty levied on petitioner requires modification. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order of penalty passed under Rules 28.2.4 is to be modified as one under Rule 28.2.2 of the MPM Officers’ Service, Conduct and Appeal Rules-1998.

¶61

For the reasons stated above, the following:-

¶62

ORDER

¶63

1. The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶64

2. The impugned order of penalty is modified demoting the petitioner to the rank of Joint General Manager in the pay scale of Rs.18,450/under Rule 28.2.2. of the MPM Officer’s Service, Conduct and Appeal Rules-1998 with effect from the date of order of penalty dated 22.02.2005.

¶65

3. It is specified that the reduction in the pay scale is for a period of one year. After lapse of one year the petitioner is entitled for the regular increment and promotion, if he is eligible under the Rules.”

¶66

¶67

The aforesaid order makes it very clear that the earlier punishment was of reduction that was for a indefinite period and as provided under Rule 28.2.4 of the Rules, 1988 and the learned Single Judge has categorically held that the punishment is modified and it will be a punishment under Rule 28.2.2 of the Rules, 1988 meaning thereby the demotion to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in a time scale for specified period and the period has also been specified by the learned Single Judge i.e., one year. Therefore, once the punishment awarded is for a period of one year, the respondent is automatically entitled for promotion and there is no necessity to hold a Departmental Promotion Committee afresh. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the petition filed by the employee. This Court does not find reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶68

No orders as to costs.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

M/S Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Sri K Balaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Sri K Balaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Beml Limited Vs Beml Employees Association

The Union of India Vs Mallikarjunaiah R

The Union of India Vs N Rajashekhara

The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs M/S. Shakthi Specialities

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cit(a) Vs Shri.Anil H Lad

The Pr Commissioner of Income -Tax Cit (a) Vs M/S Gokaldas Images Pvt. Ltd.