Allowed

Sri Santhosh Ivanagi v. the General Manager

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2021WA/705/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed three writ appeals concerning Assistant Linermen of BESCOM by applying the ratio of a previous judgment (Writ Appeal No.261 of 2020). The Court set aside orders dismissing the petitions and ordered reinstatement, subject to pending inquiries, citing principles of parity.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement of respondent employees subject to the result of the pending inquiry, with costs to each party.

Sri Santhosh Ivanagi Vs the General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.705 OF 2020 C/W WRIT APPEAL NOS.607 AND 734 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶9

WA NO.705 OF 2020:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI.SANTHOSH IVANAGI SON OF SHRISHAIL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT LINEMAN BESCOM, DIVISION-II CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶12

... APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI:JAVEED S., ADVOCATE (PH))

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE GENERAL MANAGER ADM & HRD, BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) O & M DIVISION, BESCOM CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI:P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV FOR R1 & R2 (VC))

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO.35930 OF 2019 (S-DIS) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.

¶21

WA NO.607 OF 2020:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SRI.VIRAPAKSHAPPA PUJARI SON OF NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT LINEMAN BESCOM, BELLATTI DIVISION HARIHARA-577 201.

¶24

…APPELLANT

¶25

(BY SRI:JAVEED S., ADVOCATE (PH))

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE GENERAL MANAGER ADM & HRD KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE BENGALURU-560 009.

¶28

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) KA & PA DIVISION BESCOM HARIHARA-577 001

¶29

....RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI:P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV FOR R1 & R2 (VC))

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4376 OF 2020 (S-DIS) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.

¶32

¶33

WA NO.734 OF 2020:

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

SRI.RAFEEQ ABDULSAB BADAMI SON OF ABDULSAB AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT LINEMAN BESCOM, KUKAVAD DIVISION GRAMINA SUB DIVISION DAVANAGERE.

¶36

PERMANENT ADDRESS: C/O CHANDSAB KUDAGI AT POST ACHANUR TALUK BAGALKOT-587 111.

¶37

…APPELLANT

¶38

(BY SRI:JAVEED S., ADVOCATE (PH))

¶39

AND:

¶40

THE GENERAL MANAGER ADM & HRD KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE BENGALURU-560 009.

¶41

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) VA, COM & PA DIVISION BESCOM DAVANAGERE-577 002.

¶42

....RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI:P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV FOR R1 & R2 (VC))

¶44

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.36451 OF 2019 (S-DIS) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.

¶45

¶46

THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

Though these appeals are listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.

¶49

The appellants herein have assailed order dated 29/01/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.35930 of 2019, order dated 24/02/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.4376 of 2020 and the order dated 30/10/2019 passed in Writ Petition No.36451 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge. By the said order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have preferred these appeals.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respective parties submitted in unison that these appeals may be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 09/11/2020 passed in Writ Appeal No.261 of 2020 and

¶51

¶52

connected appeals by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court (The Managing Director, Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd., BESOM and another Vs Sri.Rohit Komkar and another). They submitted that the relief granted to the appellants in those cases as per paragraph Nos.17 to 21 may be granted to these appellants also.

¶53

Submission of the learned counsel for the

¶54

respective parties is placed on record.

¶55

The paragraphs referred to above in Writ Appeal No.261 of 2020 and connected matters read as under:

¶56

“17. Therefore, we find that the learned Single Judge was justified in directing that there could be an enquiry in respect of the respondents/employees irrespective of fact whether their probation has been declared or they were made permanent employees or all still under probation. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to interfere with that portion of the order. However, learned Single

¶57

¶58

Judge has directed that the respondents/employees be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. Since learned Single Judge has also granted liberty to the appellants to hold an enquiry and the enquiry is yet to commence, at this stage, it is not possible to forecast the result of the enquiry and the direction to extend all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal till reinstatement, in our considered view, would call for interference. Therefore, the said direction is modified. The appellants shall reinstate the respondents/employees, however, the said reinstatement shall be subject to the enquiry to be commenced and completed.

¶59

18. With regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the marks cards that the employees have submitted on the basis of which they have been appointed as Assistant Lineman in the appellant’s Company, having regard to the magnitude of the controversy, inasmuch as information in respect of 173 employees it yet to be received from the

¶60

¶61

Department, there is initiation of enquiry in respect of 74 fake marks card and certain persons have approached this Court and have been granted relief. We think that it is just and proper to direct Sri.H.M.Nanjunda Swamy, retired District Judge and presently the Director of the Bengaluru Arbitration Centre, to be appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and to submit a report to the appellant in the place of Sri.Shivannagoudar, who has been appointed by the appellants. Learned Enquiry Officer shall decide the venue of the enquiry and he shall be suitably remunerated by the appellants.

¶62

19. It is needless to observe that all the respondents/employees who have not yet been reinstated shall be reinstated into service within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, if not already reinstated. This direction is being issued since the appellants have already reinstated twelve employees and therefore, having regard to the principle of parity, all the respondents/employees shall be

¶63

¶64

reinstated, if not already reinstated. It is further directed that the said reinstatement is subject to the result of the enquiry and any benefits that they have received consequential to the reinstatement shall also be subject to the result of the enquiry except the salary that they would receive for serving in the appellant’s company. To that extent, the impugned order is modified.

¶65

20. Learned Enquiry Officer shall conduct the enquiry within a period of nine months from the date of commencement of the enquiry by him. It is needless to observe that the appellants and the respondents/employees shall co-operate with the Enquiry Officer for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry.

¶66

21. It is further clarified that on such reinstatement being made, the respondents/employees shall only be entitled to the last drawn salary for the duties performed by them in the appellant’s Company. All arrears of salary as well as further consequential benefits shall be subject

¶67

¶68

to the result of the enquiry proceedings to be conducted by the learned Enquiry Officer.”

¶69

The directions issued in the aforesaid cases to the appellants therein shall also apply and enure to the benefits of the appellants in these cases also.

¶70

The Writ Appeals are allowed in part.

¶71

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶72

Since these appeals are disposed following the earlier judgment passed by this Court in the aforementioned matters, the delay in filing Writ Appeal Nos.705 and 734 of 2020 is ignored. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

*bgn/-

Sri Santhosh Ivanagi v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Santhosh Ivanagi v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Constituent Attorney Vs the Managing Director

Sri Sandeep K H Vs Smt Sowmya G

Sri Suresh Ram Chaurasia Vs Smt Manushree

Abb Employees Union Vs M/S. Abb India Ltd.

Sri. Virapakshappa Pujari Vs the General Manager

Sri. Vishvanath P Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike