Allowed

H B Dastgir v. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/51254/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired engineer challenged disciplinary and appellate orders directing recovery for loss of conductor material. The court found the Enquiry Officer had held charges unproved, the Disciplinary Authority failed to follow Regulation 11[A][2] procedure before differing with the enquiry report, and quashed both orders with refund plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Disciplinary and appellate orders set aside; Rs.61,770/- if recovered to be refunded with 9% interest within three months.

H B Dastgir Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37781 WP No. 51254 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 51254 OF 2017 (S-R)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H.B. DASTGIR SON OF SHEIK BUDEN SAB, 73 YEARS, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL), KPCL, 2^ND CROSS, CM EXTENSION, KYATHSANDRA, TUMKUR-517204.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CUAVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶12

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

¶13

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EL) MEGA WORKS, FPS COMPOUND, NR MOHALLA, MYSURU-570001.

¶14

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2017 BEARING NO.KPCL/B21/6225/2003-04 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT-BOARD (ANNEXURE-G) AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2003 BEARING NO.KPCL/B53/7317/2002-03 PASSED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT BOARD (ANNEXURE -E) AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:37781 WP No. 51254 of 2017

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing No.KPCL/B21/6225/2003-04 dated 16.03.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order bearing No.KPCL/B53/7317/2002-03 dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶23

The petitioner while working as an Assistant Executive Engineer at Gubbi in the year 1997 had received 6000 meters of No.2 ACSR conductor from Tumkur store. He acknowledged it and handed it over to the Assistant store keeper. However, the Assistant store keeper who was required to make appropriate entries in the stock ledger did not do so and as a result, receipt of 6000 meters of No.2 ACSR conductor did not find a place in the records. The Executive Engineer of Tumkur noticed this discrepancy and proceeded to pass an order dated 16.09.1999 / 22.09.1999 directing recovery of Rs.61,770/- from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondent No.1 by order dated

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37781 WP No. 51254 of 2017

¶25

19.10.2001, directed its Chief Engineer to cancel the order of recovery of Rs.61,770/- passed by the Executive Engineer and directed a departmental enquiry to be held against the petitioner. Following this, articles of charge dated 20.11.2001 was issued accusing the petitioner of two charges. The Chief Engineer by an order dated 04.12.2001, cancelled the order of recovery dated 22.09.1999 and directed refund of a sum of Rs.61,770/- which had been recovered from the petitioner’s salary. The first charge related to not entering the receipt of 6000 meters No.2 ACSR conductor in the stock register resulting in a loss of Rs.61,770/- to the Board. The second charge was that the petitioner had created a false document and had misappropriated the materials. An enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved but however held that the petitioner was negligent in not ensuring that the goods received at the store at Gubbi were entered in the stock register. The Disciplinary Authority who issued a second show cause notice on 07.04.2003 to the petitioner considered his reply and passed an order on 18.11.2003 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.61,770/- from the

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37781 WP No. 51254 of 2017

¶27

salary of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of the respondent No.1 who dismissed the appeal in terms of the order dated 16.03.2017.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer had categorically recorded a finding that 6000 meters of No.2 ACSR conductor sent from Tumkur store was received at the store at Gubbi and PW.4 had acknowledged the receipt of the same at Gubbi. He submits that there is no dispute regarding the receipt of the goods and that the only mistake was that the entry of the goods was not made in the concerned stock register. He submits that there was no financial misappropriation as alleged against the petitioner. Even otherwise, he contends that the Disciplinary Authority while not accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer did not follow the procedure prescribed under Regulation 11[A][2] of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for short,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:37781 WP No. 51254 of 2017

¶32

‘the Regulations, 1987’). The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the report of the Enquiry Officer where he had categorically recorded a finding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved and the goods that were sent by the Tumkur store were received at the Gubbi store and the same were sufficiently acknowledged by PW.4. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order/s passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are not proper but are passed without considering the evidence on record and therefore warrant interference.

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a detailed statement of objections contending that the petitioner failed to account for the 6000 meters of No.2 ACSR conductor that was received at Gubbi store and therefore, he was responsible for the misuse of the materials. He contends that in the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner had claimed that 4000 meters of No.2 ACSR Conductor was used up for 63 KVA transmission line work in the C.S. Pura Section, Hurulagere, which was entered in the ‘C’ Register and the balance 2000 meters was used up in minor repair works. He contends that the petitioner failed to produce any

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37781 WP No. 51254 of 2017

¶35

documents in support of his above contention. Therefore, it is contended that the defence raised by the petitioner is baseless and hence, the Appellate Authority had confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. He, therefore, contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order/s passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority warranting interference.

¶36

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

¶37

A perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer, more particularly, the evidence of PW.4, the Assistant Store Keeper at Gubbi establishes beyond doubt that 6000 meters of No.2 ACSR conductor at Gubbi was received. However, there were no corresponding entries made in the stock register. The Enquiry Officer has thoroughly scanned the evidence and has come to the conclusion that 6000 meters of No.2 ACSR conductor was received at the Gubbi store and that there were no proper entries made in the stock register in that regard. The Enquiry Officer thus held that the petitioner was negligent in

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:37781 WP No. 51254 of 2017

¶40

not making proper entries in the stock register. However, he also held that there was no financial misappropriation as alleged against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority before whom this report was submitted ought to have complied with the procedure as contemplated under the Regulation 11[A] [2] of the Regulations, 1987 in first notifying the petitioner the grounds on which he felt that the enquiry report was not acceptable. The Disciplinary Authority must have given an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why the report of the Enquiry Officer should not be rejected and penalty for recovery of the amount in question should not be passed. The Disciplinary Authority without following the above procedure, proceeded to hold that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriation of the said goods though there was substantial evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer to the contrary. The Appellate Authority also did not consider this but relied upon the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

In a domestic enquiry instituted under the Regulations, 1987, the respondents are bound to comply with the Regulations, 1987 strictly. The impugned order/s passed

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:37781 WP No. 51254 of 2017

¶44

by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority establish beyond doubt that the same were not done in accordance with the Regulations, 1987. This apart in view of the evidence that was recorded before the Enquiry Officer which established that there was no misappropriation, the charges against the petitioner cannot be held to be proved. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. This writ petition is allowed .

¶47

ii. The impugned order bearing No.KPCL/B21/6225/2003-04 dated 16.03.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order bearing No.KPCL/B53/7317/2002-03 dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority are set aside. As a result, if a sum of Rs.61,770/is recovered from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to

¶48

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37781 WP No. 51254 of 2017

¶49

refund it to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the report of the Enquiry Officer. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶50

iii. It is needless to mention that any amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 22.09.1999 passed by the Executive Engineer, Tumkur, if not already refunded shall also be refunded to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deduction till the date of repayment.

¶51

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

H B Dastgir v. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H B Dastgir v. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Madhu H P Vs the State of Karnataka

Pramod Kumar Verma Vs Syndicate Bank

Sri Jagannatha K G Vs the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation

Sri. Guru Siddarameshwara Education Society Regd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha .G.M Vs the Principal Secretary

Nagamma Vs Principal Secretary to Government