Partly allowed

Sri Rudresh R v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024WP/13709/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A power corporation employee posted to a vacant AEE post on medical grounds was displaced by an in-charge arrangement following litigation by his predecessors. The Court held the Hootagalli post stood vacant under the Division Bench's directions and directed the employer to repost the petitioner there within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to issue orders posting the petitioner as AEE (Ele) CESCOM, Hootagalli sub-division, Mysuru, within two weeks.

Sri Rudresh R Vs Karnataka Power Transmission… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21542 WP No. 13709 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13709 OF 2024 (S-TR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI RUDRESH R S/O LATE SRI RAMAPPA S H, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS AEE (ELE) CESCOM, MANDYA MYSURU 571401.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. ONKARA K B.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY BHAVANA BANGALORE 560001.

¶12

CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE , CESCOM, MYSORE 570017.

¶13

CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:21542 WP No. 13709 of 2024

¶16

CESCOM MYSORE 570017.

¶17

THE CHEIF ENGINEER CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, CESCOM, MYSORE 570017.

¶18

SRI KESHSAVAMURTHY C M S/O NOT KNOWN MAJOR, WORKING AS AEE (ELE) CESCOM, HOOTAGALLI SUB DIVISION, MYSORE 571401.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR2 TO R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED ON 29.04.2024 AS PER (ANNEXURE A) PASSED BY R-2 AND VIOLATING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDERS.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is presently working as AEE [Ele]

¶25

CESCOM, Mandya and he has filed this petition calling in question the second respondent's order dated 29.04.2024 [ Annexure-A ] placing the second

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21542 WP No. 13709 of 2024

¶27

respondent in charge of the post of AEE (Ele), Hootagalli Sub-division, CESCOM, Mysuru. The petitioner's grievance with this order, and his request for reposting him as AEE [Ele] CESCOM, Hootagalli sub-division, Mysuru, is examined in the light of the following admitted circumstances.

¶28

Sri Lakshmeesha K.K. was posted as AEE [Ele], Hootagalli sub-division, CESCOM, Mysuru, but with his suspension, Sri Ashok M.P. is posted in his place only to be kept, like Sri Lakshmeesha K.K, under suspension. Consequentially, the petitioner is posted to this post on medical grounds. Sri Lakshmeesha K.K. has filed writ petition in WP No.23957/2023 impugning the order under which he is kept under suspension, and this writ petition is allowed and carried in an intra-court appeals.

¶29

Further, both Sri Lakshmeesha K.K. and

¶30

Sri Ashok M.P. have filed writ petitions in

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:21542 WP No. 13709 of 2024

¶33

W.P.No.2390/2024 and W.P.No.1533/2024 calling in question the petitioner's posting as aforesaid. This Court by order dated 15.02.2024 has allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.2390/2024 by Sri Lakshmeesha K.K. while the writ petition in W.P.No.1533/2024 by Sri Ashok M.P. is rejected and insofar as the petitioner's transfer [ the petitioner is the sixth and fifth respondents respectively in these petitions ], this Court has observed as follows:

¶34

"The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.2390/2024 and the learned counsel appearing for CESCOM have brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23957/2023 quashing the suspension order is seized before the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.1488 and 1536/2023. It is made clear that the rights of respondents 5 and 6 will be subject to the outcome of the aforesaid writ appeals.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:21542 WP No. 13709 of 2024

¶37

The CESCOM and Sri Ashok M.P have called in question this Court’s order in WP No.23957/2023 in their corresponding intra Court appeals in W.A.No.1536/2023 and W.A.No.1488/2023. A Division Bench has taken these intra Court appeals for consideration along with the contempt proceedings in CCC No.69/2024 initiated by Sri Lakshmeesha K.K. complaining of disobedience with the aforesaid order in WP No.23957/2023, and the Division Bench by its order dated 02.04.2024 has disposed of these proceedings with certain directions and the directions read as under:

¶38

However, following directions would operate, while allowing the appeal. (i) The appellant-employer shall, if advised, proceed with the departmental action against the respondent without any delay; The departmental proceedings, if initiated shall be completed within three months from the date of initiation,

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21542 WP No. 13709 of 2024

¶40

(ii) It is open for the appellant that the petitioner may be posted at any other place to ensure that he is not able to influence the enquiry or the witnesses etc;

¶41

(iii) The subsistence allowance which may be payable to the petitioner during the suspension period shall be regularly paid."

¶42

In the meanwhile, the petitioner, is posted as AEE [Ele] CESCOM, Mandya and the second respondent is placed in charge of the post of AEE [Ele], Hootagalli sub-division, CESCOM, Mysuru. The follow out of the order in these proceedings is that neither Sri Lakshmeesha K.K nor Sri Ashok M P can assert to hold the post of AEE [Ele], Hootagalli subdivision, CESCOM, Mysuru. The learned counsels for the parties are heard in the light of the afore, and the petition is disposed of considering the following question:

¶43

"Should there be a direction to the second respondent to post the petitioner as AEE [Ele]

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:21542 WP No. 13709 of 2024

¶46

CESCOM, Hootagalli sub-division, Mysuru in the light of the turn of events as aforesaid.

¶47

This Court is of the considered opinion

¶48

that answer to the afore must be in the positive because the petitioner at the first instance is transferred on medical grounds to a post which fell vacant because of the suspension orders against Sri Lakshmeesha K K and Sri Ashok M.P., and he is disturbed from that place because of the proceedings commenced by them resulting in this Court's order dated 15.02.2024 in W.P.No.2390/2024 and W.P.No.1533/2024 in favour of Sri Laksmeesha K. K.

¶49

However, Sri Ashok M.P.'s grievance has attained finality with the dismissal of his writ petition in W.P.No.1533/2024 without a further appeal. Insofar as Sri Lakshmeesha K.K., the Division Bench is categorical in its order dated 02.04.2024 that he must be posted at any other place to ensure that there is no influence of the enquiry or witness.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:21542 WP No. 13709 of 2024

¶52

Consequentially, the post of AEE (Ele) CESOM, Hootagalli sub-division, Mysuru, would be vacant and this Court cannot see any reason to post the fifth respondent, especially with the orders of the Division Bench, as additional in-charge when the petitioner himself would be accommodated because he was posted at the first instance on medical grounds. As such, the petition is allowed in part directing the second respondent to issue appropriate orders to post the petitioner as AEE [Ele] CESCOM, Hootagalli subdivision, Mysuru within a period of two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

SA ct:sr

Sri Rudresh R v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rudresh R v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

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

N Ramachandra Vs Canara Bank

Smt. J D Vijayakumari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M S Shivaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr G v Jayaramaiah Vs the Principal Secretary

Dr K M Mahadevan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Somashekar N S Vs the State of Karnataka