Partly allowed

Sri Manjunath Banni v. the General Manager

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/16127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court upheld suspension of Assistant Linemen appointed by BESCOM whose qualifications were alleged to be fake. However, it ordered payment of subsistence allowance per Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Regulations 1987 until the enquiry report. Failure to pay subsistence will halt the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Suspension upholding; Direction to pay subsistence allowance per regulations; Enquiry barred if subsistence not paid within six months.

Sri Manjunath Banni Vs the General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36760 WP No. 16127 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16127 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MANJUNATH BANNI S/O CHANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC: ASSISTANT LINEMAN, BESCOM, Y.N. HOSKOTE, PAVGODA SUB-DIVISION, MADUGIRI DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101.

¶8

SRI. MUTTAPPA MALAGOND S/O YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: ASSISTANT LINEMAN, BESCOM, HOLAVANAHALLI, KORADGERE DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101.

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. MALLIKARJUN MALAGOND S/O YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT LINEMAN, BESCOM, NAGALAMADIKE, PAVGODA SUB-DIVISION, MADUGIRI DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER ADM AND HRD, KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, BANGALORE-560009.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:36760 WP No. 16127 of 2024

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BESCOM, COMMERCIAL, WORK DIVISION, MADUGIRI-577123.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. THARANGINI M.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 BEARING NO. Ka.Ni.EM.(Vi)/Le Aa/SA.Le.Aa/Hi.Sa(Si)/24-25/1387-94 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E, ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 BEARING NO. Ka.Ni.EM.(Vi)/Le Aa/SA.Le.Aa/Hi.Sa(Si)/24-25/1379-86 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E1, AND ORDER DATED 05.06.2024 BEARING NO. Ka.Ni.EM.(Vi)/Le Aa/SA.Le.Aa/Hi.Sa(Si)/24-25/1371-78 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E2, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners have challenged the orders bearing Nos.ªÀÄ:PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/24-25/1387-94, ªÀÄ:PÁ¤EA(«)/ ¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/24-25/1379-86, ªÀÄ:PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36760 WP No. 16127 of 2024

¶25

24-25/1371-78, all dated 05.06.2024 passed by the respondent

¶26

No.2 by which the petitioners were suspended from service.

¶27

The petitioners contend that they were appointed as Assistant Linemen in the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited ('BESCOM' for short) on 12.08.2015. They contend that they had completed the prescribed test in the trade of Electrician and the Craftsmen Training Scheme conducted by the Government of Karnataka, Department of Employment and Training. Based on the above qualification, they were appointed by the respondents. When things stood thus, the respondent No.2 issued show cause notice/s dated 30.05.2024 to the petitioners alleging that the marks cards furnished by them were reported to be fake by the Department of Employment and Training and therefore, called upon them to show cause why action should not be initiated against them.

¶28

The petitioners submitted their reply following which the respondent No.2 passed the impugned orders suspending them from service. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the aforesaid orders.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:36760 WP No. 16127 of 2024

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were not heard before the impugned orders of suspension were passed. He contends that similarly placed person/s had filed W.P. No.46307/2018 and W.P. Nos.4998587/2018 before this Court which were allowed in terms of the orders dated 19.06.2019 and 26.07.2019 respectively. He contended that the Managing Director and the Executive Engineer (Electrical) of BESCOM filed W.A. No.261/2020 and connected cases, where this Court appointed a retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry and thereafter take suitable action. He, therefore, prays that a similar order be passed in this petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

¶33

the petitioners had all submitted fake marks cards and the same came to the notice of the respondents only after the marks cards of the petitioners were sent for verification by the Department of Employment and Training. He pointed to the report of the said Department and contended that the petitioners had tampered the marks and also the names of the persons and had managed to furnish them to obtain an appointment. He therefore contends that the respondent Nos.1

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36760 WP No. 16127 of 2024

¶35

and 2 after considering the reply of the petitioners, felt it appropriate to place the petitioners under suspension pending enquiry.

¶36

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are not even provided subsistence allowance in accordance with the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987.

¶37

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶38

counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶39

If the petitioners were served with show cause notice/s accusing them of furnishing fake marks cards to obtain orders of appointment, then the same needs to be investigated, more particularly, in the light of the report submitted by the Department of Employment and Training. Therefore, if the Disciplinary Authority felt that the reply submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice/s is not satisfactory, he is entitled to conduct an enquiry and thereafter take suitable action in accordance with law. Thus, pending an enquiry, the

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36760 WP No. 16127 of 2024

¶41

respondent No.2 was entitled to suspend the services of the petitioners. Therefore, there is no error committed by the respondent No.2 in suspending the petitioners from service. However, the respondent No.2 is bound to ensure that the petitioners are paid the subsistence allowance in accordance with law until conclusion of the enquiry and submission of report by the Enquiry Officer and until respondent No.2 passes appropriate orders on the enquiry report. There is absolutely no escape from this. Hence, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. This petition is allowed in part .

¶44

ii. The impugned orders bearing Nos. ªÀÄ:PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/24-25/1387-94,

¶45

ªÀÄ:PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/24-25/1379-86,

¶46

ªÀÄ:PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/24-25/1371-78, all dated

¶47

05.06.2024 suspending the petitioners from service are upheld.

¶48

iii. The respondents are directed to strictly comply with the procedure stipulated under the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:36760 WP No. 16127 of 2024

¶51

before passing any order of punishment against the petitioners. This shall be done within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶52

iv. Until then, the respondent No.2 shall pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioners as provided in law.

¶53

v. It is made clear that if subsistence allowance is not paid to the petitioners, the enquiry shall not be proceeded with.

¶54

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶55

SMA

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Sri Manjunath Banni v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath Banni 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Anjaneya. C Vs the Honble Home Secretary

Shivananda B Hunasyal Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kruthika M v Vs the Commissioner

K Jayavantha Pai Vs Karnataka Gramin Bank

Sri Chethan S Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

K Geetha Vs State of Karnataka