Allowed

Sri. C S Suresh v. Union of India

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2024WP/31402/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Warehouse managers challenged charge memos, enquiry reports and recovery/dismissal penalties for storage loss due to dryage of maize. Holding the fresh enquiry contravened a prior final court order excluding dryage charges, the Court quashed the notices, recovery orders and dismissal order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; notices, enquiry reports, recovery orders and the recovery-cum-dismissal order issued by respondent No.5 quashed.

Sri. C S Suresh Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 31402 OF 2017 (S-DE)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.31401 OF 2017 (S-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.43200 OF 2017 (S-DIS)

¶9

IN WRIT PETITION NO.31402/2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI.C S SURESH WARE HOUSE MANAGER GRADE-2 KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RANEBENNUR UNIT-II RANEBENNUR-581 115 HAVERI DISTRICT

¶13

(BY SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

AND:

¶16

UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD & PUBLIC DISRTIBUTION GOVT OF INDIA KRISHI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 001

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶19

SECRETARY (POLICY & FCI)

¶20

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA KADHYA SADANA 16-20, BARA KAMBA LANE NEW DELHI -110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶22

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NO.10, MAIN ROAD, EAST END JAYANAGAR, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

¶23

KARNATAKA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD 43, PRIMA ROSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R.3; SRI.MADANAN PILLAI R, CGC FOR R.1; SRI.S.SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 TO R.4; SRI.JAGADEEH B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R.5)

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES CUM ENQUIRY REPORTS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 06.04/05.2014 AND DATED 21.09.2015 AT ANNEXURE-A AND A.1 AND ETC.

¶28

IN WRIT PETITION NO.31401 OF 2017

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SRI.HIRAPPA HANUMAPPA LAMANI S/O HANUMAPPA LAMANI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WARE HOUSE MANAGER GRADE-2 KARNATAKA STATE WARE HOUSE CORPORATION APMC YARD LAKSHMESHWARA – 582 116 GADAG DISTRICT

¶31

…PETITIONER

¶32

(BY SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD & PUBLIC DISRTIBUTION GOVT OF INDIA KRISHI BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (POLICY & FCI)

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶36

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA KADHYA SADANA 16-20, BARA KAMBA LANE NEW DELHI -110 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶37

STATE OF KARNATAKA FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶38

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NO.10, MAIN ROAD, EAST END JAYANAGAR, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

¶39

KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD 43, PRIMA ROSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI.K.MANJUNATH RAO BHONSLE, CGC FOR R.1; SRI.S.SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 & R.4; SRI.V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R.3; SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.5)

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES AND ENQUIRY REPORTS DATED 06.04/05.2014 AND DATED 29.05.2015 AT ANNEXURE-A AND A.1 AND ETC.

¶44

IN WRIT PETITION NO.43200 OF 2017

¶45

BETWEEN:

¶46

SRI.N.F.PATIL S/O FAKKIRAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 56 YEARS MANAGER (WAREHOUSEMAN) KSWC ‘CHINNAMMA’ BUILDING, LAXMINAGAR BEHIND PRAKASH GINNING FACTORY LAXMESHWAR - 581116 TQ. SHIRAHATTI DIST. GADAG

¶47

…PETITIONER

¶48

(BY SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND:

¶50

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (POLICY AND FCI) DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION GOVT OF INDIA KRISHI BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110 001

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶52

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KADHYA SADANA 16-20, BARA KAMBA LANE NEW DELHI -110 001

¶53

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶54

GENERAL MANAGAR FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NO.10, MAIN ROAD, EAST END JAYANAGAR, 4^TH ‘T’ BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 041

¶55

KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD., 43, PRIMA ROSE ROAD BENGALURU- 25 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶56

…RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI.V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R.3; SRI.MADANAN PILLAI R, CGC FOR R.1; SRI.N.DINESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 & R.4; SRI.SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R.5)

¶58

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶60

QUAH THE RECOVERY CUM DISMISSAL ORDER ISSUED BY R.5 DATED 21.06.2017 VIDE ANNEX-A AND PETITIONER TO BE INSTATED INTO SERVICE OF THE R.5 AND ETC.

¶61

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

¶62

ORDER

¶63

In these batch of writ petitions, the petitioners

¶64

are assailing the charge memo issued by respondent No.5.

¶65

The charge memo relates to storage loss due to dryage.

¶66

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶67

in batch of petitions has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.5558/2007.

¶68

Placing reliance on para No.7 and clause (3) of the operative portion, he would submit that respondent No.5 was directed to proceed with enquiry except the charge relating to storage loss due to dryage. The said portions are relevant and the same is reproduced as under.

¶69

“7. In so far as the direction sought for in the I.A. is concerned, a perusal of the show cause notice produced along with same shows

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶72

that charges leveled against its employees are not solely based on the deficiency in the weight which is called storage loss or dryage loss. The show cause notice includes several other misconduct on part of the employees. Under these circumstances, it is not appropriate to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the said show cause notice. All that can be said is that the authorities are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in terms of the show cause notice except the misconduct of loss of weight due to dryage. Under these circumstances, I pass the following order

¶73

(1) xxxx

¶74

(2) xxxx

¶75

(3) The 5^th respondent is at liberty to proceed with the enquiry initiated against the employees of the first petitioner except the charge regarding storage loss due to dryage.”

¶76

(4) xxx

¶77

However, contrary to the directions issued by

¶78

this Court, respondent No.5 has again proceeded with an

¶79

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶80

enquiry and storage loss due to dryage is also subject matter of the enquiry and the same runs contrary to the directions issued at clause – (3) of the operative portion of the order and also Section 17 of the Karnataka Warehouses Act, 1961.

¶81

This factual matrix is not at all seriously disputed by the learned AGA and other learned counsel appearing for respondents, however, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶82

This Court would find some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶83

On meticulous examination of the charge

¶84

memo and consequent penalty regarding recovery of money insofar as storage loss due to dryage as per Annexure-B in W.P.No.31402/2017, W.P.No.31401/2017 and as per Annexure-A in W.P.No.43200/2017 needs consideration at the hands of this Court.

¶85

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶86

On closure examination of the charge memo,

¶87

this Court would find that respondent No.5, contrary to the directions issued by this Court, has again conducted an enquiry to ascertain the storage loss on account of dryage of maize. The Co-ordinate Bench at para No.7 has clearly observed that the enquiry can proceed against the misconduct on the part of employees relating to other incidents excluding the misconduct regarding storage loss due to dryage. Contrary to the directions issued by this Court, respondent No.5 has again issued charge memo and the impugned penalty as per Annexure-B in W.P.No.31402/2017, W.P.No.31401/2017 and Annexure-A in W.P.No.43200/2017 is inflicted.

¶88

On a query to the learned AGA, as to whether

¶89

the fresh charge memo relates to storage loss due to dryage, on reading the entire charge memo, he would contend that the enquiry pertains to actual loss caused on

¶90

account of dryage. He would point out that where dryage was found in excess of quantity limit, it is well

¶91

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶92

within the Authority of respondent No.5 to hold a fresh enquiry. Therefore, he would point out that the penalty imposed by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-B in W.P.No.31402/2017, W.P.No.31401/2017 and Annexure-A in W.P.No.43200/2017 does not warrant any interference.

¶93

However, this Court is not inclined to accede to the arguments advanced by the learned AGA.

¶94

On closure examination of the charge memo,

¶95

this Court would find that respondent No.5 contrary to the directions issued by this Court has revisited the issue relating to misconduct of storage loss due to dryage. This Court has clearly directed that respondent No.5 cannot proceed with enquiry against the employees insofar as it relates to storage loss due to dryage. The entire enquiry is concentrated on storage loss due to dryage.

¶96

If respondent No.5 has accepted the judgment rendered in W.P.No.5558/2007, the charge memo issued pursuant to

¶97

the directions issued by this Court and consequent penalty

¶98

are not sustainable and same are bad in law. Respondent

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶101

No.5 having accepted the judgment rendered in W.P.No.5558/2007 was not justified in holding a fresh enquiry contrary to the directions issued by this Court.

¶102

It is imperative to emphasize that the order

¶103

passed by this Court in W.P.No.5558/2007 has achieved finality, primarily due to the absence of any challenge against it. This absence of contest implies an implicit acceptance of the order’s validity and renders it conclusive in nature. The principle of estoppel arises in such circumstances, whereby respondent No.5 is precluded from deviating from the terms set forth by the Court. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Court’s directives by the authorities establishes a binding obligation upon them

¶104

to adhere to its terms. Hence, any attempt by the authorities to include charges related to storage loss due to dryage would not only contravene the principle of estoppel but also undermine the integrity of judicial process. In essence, respondent No.5’s failure to comply with the Court’s directives and the subsequent attempt to

¶105

13 -

¶106

NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶107

include charges contrary to this Court’s directives not only constitutes a breach of legal obligation but also undermines the fundamental principles of justice and fairness inherent in the judicial system.

¶108

Though respondent No.5 is at liberty to proceed against the petitioners, however, respondent No.5 shall strictly adhere to clause (3) of the operative portion of the order rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench, which is culled out supra. Respondent No.5 cannot proceed to hold an enquiry against the employees in respect of storage loss due to dryage.

¶109

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds

¶110

to pass the following;

¶111

ORDER

¶112

(i) The writ petitions are allowed.

¶113

(ii) The Notices and Enquiry reports issued by respondent No.5 bearing No.KaRaHuNe/JaV/EV/06/593/2014-15 dated

¶114

14 -

¶115

NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶116

06.04/05.2014 and bearing No.KaRaHuNe/JaV /EV/06/3409/2015-16 dated 21.09.2015 vide Annexures – A and A1 in W.P.No.31402/2017 are hereby quashed.

¶117

(iii) The recovery order issued by respondent No.5 bearing No.KaRaHuNe/JaV/ EV/06/6287/2016-17 dated 16/17.03.2017 vide Annexure-B in W.P.No.31402/2017 is hereby quashed.

¶118

(iv) The Notices and Enquiry reports issued by respondent No.5 bearing No.KaRaHuNe/JaV/EV/12/595/2014-15 dated 06.04/05/2014 and bearing No.KaRaHuNe/ JaV/EV/12/939/2014-15 dated 29.05.2015 vide Annexure – A & A1 in W.P.No.31401/2017 are hereby quashed.

¶119

(v) The recovery order issued by respondent No.5 bearing No.KARAHUNE/JaV/ EV/12/4536/2016-17 dated 06.12.2016 vide Annexure-B is hereby quashed in W.P.No.31401/2017.

¶120

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:16112 WP No. 31402 of 2017 C/W WP No. 31401 of 2017 WP No. 43200 of 2017

¶121

(vi) The order passed by respondent No.5 – Corporation bearing No.KaRaHuNe/ AaDaLeTha/264/2017-18 dated 19.04.2017 vide Annexure-C in W.P.No.31401/2017 is hereby quashed

¶122

(vii) The recovery cum dismissal order issued by respondent No.5 dated 21.06.2017 bearing No.Ka.U.Ni/86/Jaa.Ondu/EV/1361/ 2017-18 dated 21.06.2017 vide Annexure-A in W.P.No.43200/2017 is hereby quashed.

¶123

(viii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶124

Sd/JUDGE

¶125

NBM

¶126

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri. C S Suresh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C S Suresh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virupaksha J Abbigeri Vs the Principal Secretary

Manjegowda, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Moshanandam, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt M K Pavanakshi Vs the Government of India

Sri Siddesh B R Vs State of Karnataka

Dr H G Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka