Disposed

D. Basavaraja v. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2024WP/16155/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A plea under Article 226 of the Constitution praying to quash the enquiry report and direct continuation of service was disposed of. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed response within two weeks and restrained the authority from precipitate action.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file detailed response within two weeks; authority restrained from precipitate action during this period.

D. Basavaraja Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22853 WP No. 16155 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16155 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

D. BASAVARAJA S/O RAMAPPA AND HUSENAMMA AGED 44 YEARS, 132091, SENIOR ASSISTANT (ACCOUNTS) WARD NO.3, DESHANOOR POST SIRAGUPPA TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT - 583152.

¶8

NOW WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF A O (SHIVA), SHIVANASUMUDRA MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A..,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD., SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/ DISCIPLINARY OFFICER.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) MGHE, KARNATAKA POWER

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:22853 WP No. 16155 of 2024

¶17

CORPORATION LIMITED, MAHATHMA GANDHI HYDRAULIC JOGFALLS, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (M AND O) BELLARY POWER CORPORATION ELECTRICAL CENTRE, KUDATHINI BELLARY DISTRICT - 583152.

¶19

THE ENQUIRY OFFICER BELLARY POWER CORPORATION ELECTRICAL CENTRE KUDATHINI, BELLARY - 583152.

¶20

RAMESH CHALAVADI, WARD NO.14 DARGA VONI, SANDURU BELLARY DISTRICT - 583152.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-K THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT TO TILL 2^ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/05/2024 IN PROCEEDINGS E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉ ¸ÀASÉå CC(«) JA.f.ºÉZï.E. ²¸ÀÄÛPÀæªÀÄ 220 DATED 06.09.2023 AND ALSO ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. ii) DIRECT THE 2^ND , 3^RD RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE HIS SERVICE.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:22853 WP No. 16155 of 2024

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the Show Cause Notice dated 03.06.2024 [AnnexureM] issued by the Disciplinary Authority giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the outcome in the enquiry proceedings stipulating that if cause is not shown, the appropriate decision will be taken in the matter. It is undisputed that the petitioner has responded to such show cause notice by reply dated 11.06.2024 [Annexure-N].

¶28

Sri T A Karumbaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the Enquiry Report because the Enquiry Officer has filed his Report without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner to justify that he hails from a family that has lost land and is given appointment under a scheme because of the same but the proceedings

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:22853 WP No. 16155 of 2024

¶31

have been initiated at the instance of a stranger who demanded money, and that too after twelve years.

¶32

This Court must opine that these are circumstances that will have to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority and would not be a ground for interference when the Disciplinary Authority is yet to take a decision on the afore. Therefore, there is no reason for interference. At this stage, Sri T A Karumbaiah submits that the petitioner apprehends that, given the Reply as per Annexure-N dated 11.06.2024, the Disciplinary Authority may take a decision in haste to the petitioner's detriment.

¶33

The petitioner must have reasonable opportunity to file a detailed response, if his response is either perfunctory or not detailed enough. As such, this Court must observe that if the petitioner prefers to file a detailed response, he must be at liberty and he should exercise this liberty within two weeks from today and until then the Disciplinary Authority must

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:22853 WP No. 16155 of 2024

¶36

not take any precipitative action. As such, the petition stands disposed of in terms as aforesaid.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

AN/-

D. Basavaraja v. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Basavaraja v. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd.

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

Smt S B Hoovamma W/O Nanjesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Geetha B a Haveri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. N.C. Cheluvaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Anuradha M.N. Vs the State of Karnataka

R Shanmukappa Vs the General Manager