Allowed

K.M. Vedamurthy v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (Bescom)

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2024WP/15829/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed two writ petitions challenging dismissal orders. The court quashed the orders due to the failure to issue a second show cause notice and directed reinstatement with liberty to expedite the pending disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 07.06.2024 quashed; petitioners directed to be reinstated; first respondent directed to issue second show cause notice and expedite proceedings.

K.M. Vedamurthy Vs Bangalore Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 15829 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 15833 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶10

IN WP NO. 15829/2024

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

K.M. VEDAMURTHY S/O K.S. MAHESHWARAPPA, C/O BHUVANESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS LINE MAN, C.T.KERE SECTION, RURAL SUB-DIVISION-01 BESCOM TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT RESIDING AT BENAKA 2^ND CROSS, NEAR NAVAGRAHA PARK TUNGABHADRA BLOCK, TUDA LAYOUT SIRA GATE, TUMKUR - 572102.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM) REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶20

TUMKUR DIVISION OFFICE, KOTHITHOPU TUMKUR - 572101.

¶21

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.B.L. SANJEEV.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE ORDER NO. KANIEO (vi) LESA/SALESA/HISA(SI)/2024-25/623/32 DATED 07/06/2024 PASSED BY THE R1 ANNEXURE-V WITH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING MONETARY BENEFITS. ii) QUASH THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 06/05/2024 DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY NO. 02/2023-24 ANNEXURE-T1 AND FURTHER DIRECTION TO HOLD FRESH ENQUIRY WITH AN ASSISTANT OR LEGAL PRACTITIONER.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶27

IN WP NO. 15833/2024 BETWEEN:

¶28

K.B. KUMAR S/O K.S. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS LINE MAN CITY SUB-DIVISION-3 KYATASANDRA SECTION, BESCOM TUMKUR, RESIDING AT SRI SHIVAKUMARESHWARA NILAYA, 4^TH MAIN, I STAGE, BASAVESHWARA EXTENSION, KYATASANDRA, TUMKUR TUMKUR DISTRICT - 57210.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM) REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) TUMKUR DIVISION OFFICE, KOTHITHOPU TUMKUR - 572101.

¶33

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶36

ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI.B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶39

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO. KANIEO (vi) LESA/SALESA/HISA(SI)/2024-25/613-22 DATED 07/06/2024 PASSED BY THE R1 ANNEXURE-V WITH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING MONETARY BENEFITS. ii) QUASH THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 06/05/2024 DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY NO. 01/2023-24 ANNEXURE-T1 AND FURTHER DIRECTION TO HOLD FRESH ENQUIRY WITH AN ASSISTANT OR LEGAL PRACTITIONER.

¶40

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

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petitioners are aggrieved by the

¶43

corresponding dismissal Orders dated 07.06.2024 which are produced as Annexure-V in the respective writ petitions. It is undisputed that the departmental proceedings are commenced against the petitioners with the imputation that they have produced false Certificates to secure permanent employment with

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶46

the respondents though they had not completed the qualifying age as of the date of their appointment. Further, with the initiation of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has filed his Report in both the corresponding proceedings stating that the imputation against the petitioners are proved and the Disciplinary Authority viz., the first respondent has issued the impugned orders for petitioners' dismissal from service.

¶47

The present proceedings against the petitioners indisputably have a backdrop. Both these petitioners were dismissed from service way back in the year 2009, but ultimately, with the Division Bench's Orders in the Writ Appeal Nos. 853/2021¹ and 790/2021² , the petitioners are reinstated, and fresh inquiries are initiated in the year 2022. Sri C M Nagabhushan, the learned counsel for the

¶48

1 Date of disposal - 19.09.2022

¶49

2 Date of disposal - 23.08.2022

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶52

petitioners, canvasses the following two grounds

¶53

submits insofar as the present petitions:

¶54

[a] The petitioners have not been given due opportunity to cross examine the respondents' witnesses or to lead evidence. The petitioners have not been furnished with all the necessary documents, inasmuch as the Vigilance Cell's Report which is the basis for initiation of the proceedings is not furnished to the petitioners.

¶55

[b] The first respondent - Disciplinary Authority ought to have given second Show Cause Notice to the petitioners before proceeding to accept the Inquiry Report and passing orders for petitioners' dismissal from service.

¶56

Sri B L Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the respondents, is heard in the light of these submissions, and when queried, Sri B L Sanjeev cannot dispute that the first respondent has not issued second Show Cause Notice. However, the learned counsel strenuously contends that the petitioners cannot complain about the denial of opportunity to cross examine the witnesses or lead

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶59

evidence while also stoutly refuting the canvass that the relevant documents have not been furnished to the petitioners. In fact, the learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioners have completely participated in the inquiry and have filed their respective written submissions.

¶60

This Court must observe that there is cause for interference with the impugned orders if the second Show Cause Notice, as is compulsory in law, is not issued. This Court must also observe that the proceedings must be restored to the stage of issuance of second Show Cause Notice to the petitioners with due opportunity to respond to the Inquiry Officer's Report, and that the first respondent, while considering the petitioners' response to such second Show Cause Notice, must also examine the merits of the petitioners' grievance that they have not been given opportunity to cross examine the corresponding witnesses and that they have not had the opportunity

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶63

to lead evidence or that the relevant document/s are not furnished.

¶64

This Court is of the considered view that

¶65

such consideration would be within the ambit of the scope of the second Show Cause Notice. With these conclusions, the next question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners must be reinstated subject to the outcome of issuance of such second Show Cause Notice and the consideration thereof. Sri B L Sanjeev submits that the settled law is that when the Court or Tribunal interferes with the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings on the ground that due opportunity is not extended or that there is violation of principles of natural justice, the inquiry must begin at the relevant stage and there cannot be any reinstatement.

¶66

In this regard, Sri B L Sanjeev proposes to rely upon the exposition of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶67

'Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India

¶68

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶70

and Others v. A. Masilamani'³ and upon the

¶71

exposition in Paragraph No.16 of the Apex Court’s

¶72

decision State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v.

¶73

Rajit Singh⁴ which read as under :

¶74

"It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and conclude the same."

¶75

In this case this Court is not interfering with the Inquiry proceedings. This Court's interference in this case is with the Disciplinary Authority’s orders on the limited ground that the second Show Cause Notice is not issued leaving open the questions whether there was a due opportunity,

¶76

3 [2013] 6 SCC 530

¶77

4 AIR 2022 SC 1551

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶80

or whether there is violation of principles of natural justice, to be examined by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶81

This Court is not persuaded to opine that

¶82

the petitioners must be denied the advantage of reinstatement in the light of the afore, and the fact that there are earlier proceedings resulting with the petitioners’ reinstatement after the Division Bench’ order and that there could be expeditious conclusion of the proceedings and that the respondents can issue Show Cause Notice with reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to respond. Further, given the conclusion of the proceedings almost within two months, the petitioners will not be entitled for any back wages between the period from the date of the impugned order to the date of reinstatement. Hence, the following:

¶83

ORDER

¶84

[a] The petitions are allowed in part quashing the respective orders

¶85

11 -

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024

¶87

dated 07.06.2024 [Annexure-V] in each of the petitions with liberty to the common first respondent to issue second Show Cause notice to the petitioners with reasonable opportunity to respond to the inquiry report.

¶88

[b] The first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioners subject to such proceedings, and the first respondent will be at liberty to complete the proceedings in an expedited manner.

¶89

SD/JUDGE

¶90

AN,RB

K.M. Vedamurthy v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (Bescom)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M. Vedamurthy v. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (Bescom)

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

Smt Gowramma a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manikanta. N Vs the Honble High Court of Karnataka

Sri C N Narayan Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Sri. Santhosh Kumar B S Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Chandrakumar S G S/O Late S H Giriyaiah Vs State of Karnataka

M Sundar Vs the Commissioner