Dismissed

Sri Mallikarjun Kasabegoudar v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/22627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A BESCOM lineman challenged the show-cause notice proposing his dismissal based on an enquiry report holding that the ITI marks card he submitted for employment was fake. The court held that grievances against the enquiry report must be raised before the disciplinary authority, relying on Supreme Court precedent that Article 226 jurisdiction should not be exercised against charges or show-cause no

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Mallikarjun Kasabegoudar Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35553 WP No. 22627 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22627 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MALLIKARJUN KASABEGOUDAR C/O. PARASHURAM KASABEGOUDAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.123/1, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 6^TH CROSS, GOVINDARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED RASEEL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) CORPORATE OFFICE

¶12

K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

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

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BESCOM) HIRIYUR SUB-DIVISION, HIRIYUR, KARNATAKA-577598.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ARIHANT R. SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¤) 2024-25-5397 DATED 06.08.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:35553 WP No. 22627 of 2024

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the second show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents not to dismiss him from service.

¶23

The petitioner had joined the respondent No.1 as lineman. The respondent No.1 claimed that ITI marks card submitted by the petitioner for securing the employment was fake and hence, initiated departmental action against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.30953/2019 which was allowed and the respondent No.1 was directed to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law. This was challenged by the respondent No.1 in W.A.No.261/2020. The Division Bench of this Court in terms of an order dated 09.11.2020 directed appointment of a retired District Judge to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner and submit a report. Consequent thereto, the enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35553 WP No. 22627 of 2024

¶25

against the petitioner were proved. Following this, the respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 06.08.2024 enclosing therewith a copy of the report and called upon him to showcause, as to why a penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed. This show-cause notice is challenged in this writ petition.

¶26

The petitioner has assailed the show-cause notice by contending that the findings of the enquiry officer were not based on material produced during the enquiry. He also alleged that ITI marks card produced by him is not fake as claimed, but was genuine as he has attended the examinations and had cleared it. He claimed that though the enquiry officer had specifically held that the marks card and other documents lying in the custody of the respondents authorities, were difficult to be manipulated, yet, he gave a finding that the marks card produced by the petitioner him was fake.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contention and prayed that the show-cause notice issued by the respondent No.1 be set at naught.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:35553 WP No. 22627 of 2024

¶29

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents specifically contended that the show-cause notice is issued in accordance with the KEB Employees (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (henceforth referred to as 'Regulations, 1987' for short) and it is for the petitioner to show-cause why the disciplinary authority should not accept the report of the enquiry officer and not to proceed to impose the punishment. He contends that the petitioner cannot assail the show-cause notice by attacking the report of the enquiry officer before this Court.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

A perusal of Regulation 11 of the Regulations, 1987, shows that the respondent No.1 being the disciplinary authority is entitled to issue a notice calling upon the petitioner to explain why the report of the enquiry officer should not be accepted and why the disciplinary authority should not pass appropriate orders imposing punishment. If the petitioner has any grievance against the acceptance of the enquiry report as

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35553 WP No. 22627 of 2024

¶33

well as the disciplinary authority imposing any punishment, he has to present the same before the disciplinary authority and certainly cannot challenge the show-cause notice issued.

¶34

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 held that discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised in respect of a articles of charge issued and the consequent show-cause notice. Therefore, the petition filed is not maintainable. Consequently, this petition lacks merit and is

¶35

dismissed.

¶36