Allowed

Sri Santhosh Kumar C S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024WP/4084/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three connected writ petitions concerned an Assistant Engineer suspended after a fatal electrocution and two transfer orders filling his post. Finding parity with reinstated Assistant Executive Engineers and no fault in the Inspector's report, the court revoked the suspension, quashed both transfers, and dismissed the in-charge officer's petition.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order dated 19.11.2023 and transfer order dated 25.01.2024 quashed; petitioner reinstated as Assistant Engineer at Whitefield O&M Unit with consequential benefits; WP 4084/2024 dismissed.

Sri Santhosh Kumar C S Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4084 OF 2024 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.668 OF 2024 (S-RES), WRIT PETITION NO.2784 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

IN WP NO.4084/2024 BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR C S S/O SWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) O AND M UNIT, E4 SUB DIVISION BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) WHITEFILED, BENGALURU 560066 R/AT NO 667, 4^TH MAIN GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT NELAGADARANAHALLI, PEENYA BENGALURU 560058

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENERGY DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001

¶13

¶14

2 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL) KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU 560009 3 . THE DIRCTOR (ADMIN AND HR) THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KAVERI BAHVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU 560009 4 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), K R CIRCLE BENGALURU 560001 5 . SRI CHETHAN S S/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) (UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION) O AND M UNIT, E4 SUB DIVISION BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM) WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU 560066 6 . SRI M P SOMASHEKAR S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ASSISTANT ENGINEER VARTHUR O AND M UNIT, 4TH EAST SUB DIVISION BENGALURU ELECTRICTY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), BENGALURU

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;

¶17

¶18

SRI.SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SMT.RAKSHITH.D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SIRI.R, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SMT.M.L.SUVARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE A IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO. KA VI PRA NI NI/UAPRA VA (C1)(B59)/2023 DTD 25.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO TRANSFER AND POSTING OF R-6 IN PLACE OF THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶20

IN WP NO.668/2024 BETWEEN:

¶21

SRI. CHETHAN.S S/O SHANKARAPPA M AGED 36 YEARS ASST ENGINEER (ELE) WHITEFIELD O AND M UNIT, E4 SUB DIVISION WHITEFIELD DIVISION, BESCOM BANGALORE 560066 ALSO AT SRI VARI NILAYA 5^TH CROSS, KSVK, SCHOOL ROAD DHANAMANDE, VINAYAKANAGARA WHIEFILED, BANGALORE 560066

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SIRI.R, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

1 . BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶26

¶27

CORPORATE OFFICE, BESCOM BANGALORE 560001

¶28

2 . BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY (ADMIN AND HR) CORPORATE OFFICE, BESCOM BANGALORE 560001

¶29

3 . THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, KAVERI BHAVAN/ K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶30

4 . THE KARNATKAA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KAVERI BHAVAN / K G ROAD BANGALORE 560001 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR (A) AND (HR)

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.SWAMINI G M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT.RAKSHITA.D.J, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH ORDER BEARING NO. BEVICOM/BC44/E-31/2024-25 (UNDER ANNEXURE-C TO THE WP) DATED 19/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE R2 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.,

¶34

IN WP NO.2784/2024 BETWEEN:

¶35

SRI CHETHAN S S/O SHANKARAPPA M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶36

¶37

ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELE) WHITEFILED O AND M UNIT, E4 SUB DIVISION WHITEFILED DIVISION, BESCOM BANGALORE 560066 ALSO AT SRI VARI NILAYA, 5TH CROSS, KSVK, SCHOOL ROAD, DHANAMANDE, VINAYAKANAGARA, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE 560066

¶38

...PETITIONER

¶39

(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SIRI.R, ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

1 . THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISION CORPORATION LIMITED KAVERI BHAVAN / K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶42

2 . THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KAVERI BHAVAN / K G ROAD BANGALORE 560001 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR (A) AND (HR)

¶43

3 . SRI SOMASHEKAR H P S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, VARTHUR O AND M UNIT BESCOM, BANGALORE

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI.SWAMINI.G.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶46

¶47

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE TRANSFER ORDER BEARING NO.KAVIPRANINI/ UPRAVA (C) /VYA (C1)(B59)50/2023, DTD 25.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶48

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

These three petitions relate to suspension of Chetan S, Assistant Engineer (Ele), who is petitioner in WP.668/2024 and the two transfer orders to fill the vacancy of the petitioner created on account of his suspension.

¶51

Since common issues are involved in all the

¶52

three petitions, they are taken up together.

¶53

Petitioner in W.P.No.668/2024 (Chetan.S.) was prematurely transferred vide order dated 27.5.2022. Petitioner challenged the said order by preferring a writ petition in W.P.No.10581/2022.

¶54

¶55

Petitioner‘s transfer order was stayed and respondents were directed to reconsider and place it before the Court. The petitioner submitted representation and respondent No.3-KPTCL resolved to withdraw the transfer order dated 27.5.2022 and petitioner was permitted to continue in the same place. Petitioner was again sought to be disturbed vide order dated 21.3.2023 and therefore, petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7267/2023. This Court granted an interim order and transfer order is stayed in the light of the interim order granted in W.P.No.10581/2022. Respondent No.3 again withdrew the transfer order dated 21.3.2023. These two petitions are pending consideration.

¶56

When things stood thus, petitioner was

¶57

again placed under suspension on the basis of the complaint lodged with respondent No.2-BESCOM wherein a mother aged 23 years along with her nine

¶58

¶59

month’s infant came in contact with a live wire and died on spot on account of electrocution. The respondents having placed petitioner under suspension placed one Santhosh Kumar C.S., as an incharge in place of the petitioner until further orders, who is petitioner in W.P.No.4084/2024. The said Santhosh Kumar C.S., was displaced as the respondents transferred one M.P. Somashekhar in the place of petitioner showing it to be a vacant place vide order dated 25.1.2024. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.668/2024 assailing the transfer order dated 25.1.2024 has filed writ petition in W.P.No.2784/2024. Santhosh Kumar C.S., who was placed as an in-charge in place of petitioner also questioned transfer of M.P. Somashekar in W.P.4084/2024.

¶60

Learned Senior Counsel placing reliance on

¶61

the judgment rendered by this Court in

¶62

¶63

W.P.1205/2024 and W.P.27348/2023 would vehemently argue and contend that respondent No.3 in W.P.2784/2024(M.P.Somashekhar) could not have been transferred to petitioner’s place in contravention of the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.10581/2022. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in W.P.1205/2024, he would contend that if Assistant Executive Engineer is reverted back to the post by setting aside the suspension order, Assistant Engineer (Chetan S) who was also placed under suspension based on the same incident is also entitled for the benefit of the relief granted in the above said case. Reliance is also placed on the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector.

¶64

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.4084/2024 (Santhosh Kumar C.S.) however would vehemently argue and contend that

¶65

¶66

the order of suspension in the present set of facts and circumstances does not warrant any indulgence at the hands of this Court. He would contend that the delinquent employee who is under suspension cannot be permitted to continue at the same place as it would be detrimental and against the interest of administration as well as public interest. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others .vs. Sanjiv Rajan¹ and Union of India and another vs. Ashok KUmar Agarwal² , he would contend that the scope of judicial review is very limited and the order of suspension should not ordinarily be interfered in absence of malafides. Learned counsel would further refute the claim of the Corporation as well as the petitioner in W.P.668/2024 that petitioner (Santhosh Kumar C.S.) was placed as

¶67

1 (1993) Supplement 3 SCC 483

¶68

2 (2013) 16 SCC 147

¶69

¶70

an in-charge. He would contend that the notification dated 28.11.2023 clearly indicates that petitioner in W.P.4084/2024 was deputed post suspension of Chethan.S. Therefore, he would contend that deputation is as good as a transfer and therefore, he could not have been displaced by transferring one M.P. Somashekar in his place.

¶71

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for KPTCL and BESCOM would vehemently argue and contend that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.1205/2023, they have implemented the directions and petitioner in W.P.668/2024 (Chethan.S) was reverted back and petitioner in W.P.4084/2024 was called upon to report to Corporate Office. The endorsement in that regard is also placed on record. The counsel appearing for Corporation have also brought to the notice of this Court that the word “¤AiÉÆÃd£É” as indicated in endorsement dated

¶72

¶73

28.11.2023 does not mean deputation. The counsel appearing for KPTCL and BESCOM would further contend that the above said word cannot be read as deputation as this interim arrangement was within the department. Whereas deputation means that an employee is transferred from one Department to some other department. The counsel for KPTCL and BESCOM have also brought to the notice of this Court that one M.P. Somashekar, who was transferred to Whitefield O&M Unit, which is the subject matter of the writ petition in W.P.4084/2024 and W.P.2784/2024 has accepted the posting and since the respondent-authorities have reverted the petitioner in W.P.668/2024 to the Whitefield Unit, petitioner in W.P.4084/2024 who was placed only as an in-charge has no locus and therefore, the petition filed in W.P.4084/2024 is liable to be dismissed.

¶74

¶75

Heard the learned Senior Counsel in

¶76

W.P.668/2024, the counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.4084/2024, the learned counsel appearing for

¶77

KPTCL and BESCOM and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6(M.P.Somashekar) in W.P.4084/2024.

¶78

Before I advert to the case on hand, it would be useful to cull out the transfer of Santhoshkumar C.S. in place of Chethan.S. The same reads as under:

¶79

“ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («zÀÄåvï) gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ w½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄA¢£À DzÉÃ±ÀzÀªÀgÉ«UÀÆ ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶80

PÀæ.¸ÀA	ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ/¦£À (²æÃAiÀÄÄvÀgÀÄ)	PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À	¤AiÉÆÃf¸À¯ÁzÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À
1	¹.J¸ï.¸ÀAvÉÆÃµï PÀÄªÀiÁgï, ¦£ï-16872.	¢£ÁAPÀ 02.09.2023 jAzÀ PÀA¥À¤ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ, ¨É«PÀA, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°è ¸ÀÜ¼À ¤jÃPÀëuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ.	ªÉÊmï¦üÃ¯ïØ WÀlPÀ, PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£Á 4£ÉÃ ¥ÀÆªÀð G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, ¨É«PÀA, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
			(ºÁ° CªÀiÁ£ÀwÛ£À°ègÀÄªÀ ²æÃ ZÉÃvÀ£ï J¸ï gÀªÀgÀ eÁUÀPÉÌ)

¶81

¸ÀzÀj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ PÀA¥À¤ PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀÜ¼À ¤jÃPÀëuÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ CªÀ¢ü ¢£ÁAPÀ; 02.09.2023 jAzÀ F DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀÄªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ ‘PÀqÁØAiÀÄ

¶82

¶83

PÁAiÀÄÄ«PÉ CªÀ¢ü’AiÉÆAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À¯ÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ ªÉÃvÀ£À ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ¨sÀvÉåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÊmï¦üÃ¯ïØ «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.”

¶84

On bare perusal of the endorsement, it is clearly evident that Santhoshkumar C.S. was placed as an in-charge. The endorsement clearly reveals that this arrangement is made on account of placing of Chethan S. under suspension. In the light of the wordings indicated in the endorsement supra, this Court is not inclined to accede to the contention of the petitioner in W.P.4084/2024 that he was sent on deputation and therefore, he cannot be displaced.

¶85

On account of untoward incident, which led to the death of mother and nine months’ infant, the Executive Engineer was transferred while the petitioner in W.P.668/2024, who is Assistant Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer were placed under suspension. This Court has allowed the writ petition filed by Assistant Executive Engineer in

¶86

¶87

W.P.27348/2023 and the suspension order is quashed. This Court placing reliance on the order passed in W.P.27348/2023 has allowed the writ petition filed in W.P.1205/2024 and the suspension order is quashed with a direction to respondents to reinstate the Assistant Executive Engineer at Whitefield Unit.

¶88

If these significant details are looked into, the petitioner in W.P.4084/2024 who was placed incharge on account of suspension of Chethan.S (petitioner in W.P.668/2024) has no locus and therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. M.P. Somashekhar, who was transferred by displacing the petitioner in W.P.4084/2024 is given a re-posting and he has not challenged the re-posting given to him. Petitioner in W.P.668/2024, who was placed under suspension for the same incident is also entitled to be reinstated to the Whitefield O&M Unit.

¶89

¶90

Petitioner in W.P.668/2024 is also entitled

¶91

for the benefit of the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has taken cognizance of the report of the Electrical Inspector in W.P.27348/2023. Paras 3 and 4 would clinch the issue and therefore, I deem it fit to cull out the aforesaid paragraphs, which reads as under:

¶92

“ 3. The petitioner was working as the Assistant Executive Engineer and was Incharge of the area in which the incident occurred. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said incident the Department of Electrical Inspectorate conducted an enquiry and submitted an electrical accident report in relation to that event. In this report it has been stated as follows :

¶93

“¸ÀzÀj D¥ÀWÁvÀPÉÌ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðªÀÅ vÀÄAqÁV ¥ÉÃ¥Àgï¨ÁèPïì (¥ÀÄmï-¥Ávï) ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ Low Fault current path GAmÁV, ¤UÀ¢vÀ ¥Á¯ïÖ PÀgÉAmï ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ E.J¥ï.Dgï ªÉÄÃ¯É næ¥ï DUÀ®Ä ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¤UÀ¢vÀ j¯É ¦Pï-C¥ï PÀgÉAmï ¥ÀæªÀ»¸ÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ E.J¥ï.Dgï næ¥ï DUÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR PÁgÀtªÁVzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ, ºÀ¼ÉzÁzÀ ªÀÄvÀÛ ²yÃ®UÉÆArgÀÄªÀ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¹ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄ¹ÜAiÀÄ°èlÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝgÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ J¯ï.©.J¸ï £À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁr

¶94

¶95

ªÀ«Äð£ï ¥ÀÆæ¥ï ºÁV ¤ªÀð»¹zÀÝgÉ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj MªÀgï ºÉqï ¨ÉÃgï ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À ªÀiÁUÀðUÀ¼À°è ( 11 KV Over Head Bare conductor ) CxÀð UÁqÀð( Earth Guarding ) C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÝgÉ ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¦à¸À§ºÀÄzÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÁßzsÀj¹ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶96

F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è The Central Electrical Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulation-2023 Regulation 14(1), 24(1)(i), 48(7), and 76(1) G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÁV vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÁßzsÀj¹ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”

¶97

4. A reading of the said report would indicate that no specific allegation of wrongdoing has been attributed to the petitioner. The observation of the report basically indicate that the incident could have been prevented if certain preventive measures had been taken. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner cannot be attributed directly for that particular incident.”

¶98

Therefore, the impugned suspension order which is assailed in W.P.668/2024 is not sustainable in the light of the report submitted by the authorities. The Assistant Executive Engineer pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.1205/2024 is reinstated at the same place. The petitioner, on

¶99

¶100

parity, who is in the cadre of Assistant Engineer is entitled for revocation of his suspension.

¶101

For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:

¶102

ORDER

¶103

(i) The writ petition in W.P.No.668/2024 is

¶104

allowed.

¶105

(ii) The impugned order of suspension dated 19.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶106

(iii) Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Whitefield O&M Unit, E4 Sub-Division, Whitefield Division, BESCOM, Bengaluru-560 066 and grant him all consequential benefits.

¶107

(iv) Writ petition in W.P.No.2784/2024 is allowed and the impugned transfer order

¶108

¶109

bearing No. KAVIPRANINI /UPRAVA (C) VYA (C1) (B59)50/2023 dated 25.01.2024 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶110

(v) W.P.4084/2024 is accordingly

¶111

dismissed.

¶112

Sd/JUDGE

¶113