Partly allowed

Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh v. the General Manager-H

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023WP/29363/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a proportionate punishment of posting off one increment with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect in a service dispute involving partial task completion, but dismissed another petition relating to allegations of negligence and misuse of character.

What did the court decide?

Punishment of postponement of one increment modified to 'without cumulative effect'; WP No. 7230/2020 dismissed.

Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh Vs the General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 29363 OF 2015 (S-DE)

¶7

C/w.

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 7230 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶9

IN W.P.No.29363/2015:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BISHNU PRASAD BALIAR SINGH S/O KRISHNA CHANDRA PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WORKING AS DM (PURCHASE) HELICOPTER MRO, DEPT/PB NO.R461/96219-15 HAL, BANGALORE -560 017 RESIDENT OF LAKSHMI VEGMA P.G., 4TH CROSS, ASWATH NAGAR, OPP TO KALAMANDIR, NEAR STATE BANK OF MYSORE, MARATHALLI BANGALORE-37.

¶13

(BY SRI NAGARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE GENERAL MANAGER-H & DISCIPLINE AUTHORITY, HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, HELICOPTER DIVISION, VIMANAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 017.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶19

THE MANAGING DIRECT OR (HC) & APPELLATE AUTHORITY HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, HELICOPTER COMPLEX, VIMANAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 017.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ARIHANT.R.SUNGAY., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND ON PERUSAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET IN LETTER DATED: 30.04.2013 (ANNEXURE-A) LETTER DATED:11.09.2013 (ANNEXURE-F) LETTER DATED:26.09.2013 (ANNEXURE-H) ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND LETTER DATED:10.12.2013 (ANNEXURE-K) ISSUED BY THE R-2 REJECTING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED UPON HIM BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY THEREBY THE PUNISHMENT OF POSTPONEMENT OF ONE INCREMENT OF PAY WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT AS IT WAS ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND VOID FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN ABOVE, ETC.

¶23

IN W.P.No.7230/2020:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

BISHNU PRASAD BALIAR SINGH S/O KRISHNA CHANDRA PRADHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS DM(FA/FS), GR-III HELICOPTER MRO, DEPT/PB NO.R354/962-19-15 HAL, BANGALORE -560 017 RESIDENT OF 3^RD FLOOR, No.26, SHIVATEJA, 2^ND CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, SGR DENTAL COLLEGE MAIN ROAD, MUNNEKOLALA,

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶27

BANGALORE-560 037.

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. HEMANTH., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE GENERAL MANAGER & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, HELICOPTER DIVISION, VIMANAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 017.

¶32

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & APPELLATE AUTHORITY HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED HELICOPTER COMPLEX, VIMANAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 017.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET IN LETTER NUMBER DATED 28.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-A) THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION ORDER DATED 12.07.2018 ISSED BY THE R-1 ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER ON APPEAL DATED 08.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 ANNEXURE-C AS IT IS ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND VOID FOR REASONS STATED HEREIN ABOVE, ETC.

¶36

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶38

ORDER

¶39

IN W.P. No.29363 of 2015 :

¶40

On 30.04.2013, the articles of charges were laid and imputations of misconduct were served on the petitioner.

¶41

The said articles of charge and the imputations of misconduct read as follows:

¶42

“ Articles of Charges/Imputations of

¶43

misconduct

¶44

Shri Bishnu Prasad BaliarSingh,(6467/9621915) was appointed as Management Trainee(Technical), Helicopter Division w.e.f 30.06.2008 and is presently working as Deputy Manager (GHE/GSE), Helicopter Division.

¶45

It is reported that Shri.Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh has refused to do certain tasks and also refused to continue the unfinished tasks stating that the marks has already given for the task and hence he can not do the same task etc.

¶46

It is also reported that Shri.Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh was called by his superior(SM(GHE/GSE)) on 22.04.13 to discuss & set his MAT tasks for Q-1 of 2013-

¶47

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶48

14, but Shri.Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh told him that he is not willing to set any task.

¶49

The above act of Shri Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh amounts to misconduct under Rule 4 and Rule 5(i), (xvi) & (xvii) of HAL CDA Rules and thus Shri Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh is liable for disciplinary action.”

¶50

Thus, petitioner was charge-sheeted with two articles of charge. The first one was that he had refused to do certain tasks and had refused to continue unfinished tasks, and the second charge was that when he was called by his superior to discuss and set his tasks for Quarter-I of 201314, he had told him that he was not willing to set up any task.

¶51

An enquiry was conducted, during the course of which Sri Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh was examined as MW-1. MW-1, during the course of his cross-examination,

¶52

has stated that the petitioner was guilty of not finishing the task assigned to him.

¶53

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶54

During the course of cross-examination, he has stated that Sl.No.5 of MAT was partially completed and hence, marks were given commensurate to the completed task.

¶55

In respect of the MAT Quarter-III of 2012-13, which was signed by both the appraiser, i.e., the petitioner and I.A., he has also stated that during the performance review, the petitioner was asked as to why he had entered ‘ completed’ in the achievement column, though the task was partially completed, he had replied that he could change it if he wanted to.

¶56

These facts indicate that there was some truth in the matter regarding the partial completion of the task. The Disciplinary Authority has ultimately accepted the enquiry report that was furnished, holding that the charges were proved and has proceeded to impose the punishment of postponement of one increment of pay with cumulative effect and this has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority.

¶57

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶58

It is against this order of punishment that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

¶59

A perusal of the cross-examination of MW-1 does indicate that some of the tasks entrusted to the petitioner were not complete. The evidence also indicates that the petitioner did exhibit signs of insubordination.

¶60

In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer cannot be found fault with. However, having regard to the fact that the charges alleged against the petitioner was only of partial completion of the task assigned to him, in my view, the punishment of postponement of one increment with cumulative effect would be disproportionate.

¶61

In my view, it would be appropriate to impose the punishment of postponement of one increment without cumulative effect, instead.

¶62

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part and

¶63

the order of punishment is accordingly modified.

¶64

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶65

IN W.P. No.7930 of 2020 :

¶66

On 28.11.2017, a charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner alleging that he was in the habit of neglecting his work and not performing the tasks assigned by his superiors. It was also alleged that he had abused and misbehaved with his co-employees and superiors.

¶67

Four witnesses were cited in the charge-sheet and seven documents were listed along with the charge-sheet.

¶68

An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that all the charges had been established.

¶69

The Disciplinary Authority accepted the said enquiry report after hearing the petitioner and proceeded to impose a punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect.

¶70

As against this punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate authority, after considering the entire matter, came to the conclusion that the conduct

¶71

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶72

of the petitioner was inappropriate, but given the left-over long service of his, it concluded that the punishment of postponement of five increments with cumulative effect was too severe and proceeded to review the punishment, and awarded the punishment of postponement of one increment with cumulative effect.

¶73

As against this order, the presented petition is filed.

¶74

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶75

the charges against the petitioner were untenable and there was no conclusive proof of the allegations made against him. It was contended that the charges were basically of a difference of opinion between the petitioner and his co-employees and this has been construed as misconduct.

¶76

In my view, having regard to the fact that a proper enquiry was conducted, in which the petitioner was afforded a complete opportunity to defend himself, the

¶77

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:44698 WP No. 29363 of 2015 C/W WP No. 7230 of 2020

¶78

findings recorded by the enquiry officer that the charges had been established cannot be found fault.

¶79

Further, taking into consideration that the appellate authority took the lenient view of reducing the punishment from postponement of five increments to postponement of one increment with cumulative effect, the petitioner has been dealt with fairly and an appropriate punishment has also been awarded.

¶80

I find no reason to entertain the petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed .

¶81

Sd/- JUDGE

¶82

RK CT: SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh v. the General Manager-H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishnu Prasad Baliar Singh v. the General Manager-H

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

Sri Shivappa Kuri Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G S Venkatesh Vs the Member Secretary Pca and Rd Bank Employees

Smt Kavitha K R Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Rajya Anudanitha Shikshana Samsthegala Okkuta Vs Department of Education (Primary and Secondary Education)

Sri. S. Marigowda Vs the Commissioner of Collegiate Education

Smt Asha M.C. Vs the Deputy Commissioner