Allowed

Shivakumaraswamy B L v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024WP/604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging a departmental punishment order. The Court quashed the penalty of withheld increment and recovery ordered against an Assistant Executive Engineer, ruling that he could not be held negligent for an incident predating his tenure when predecessors were in charge. It directed recovery from earlier officers if necessary. (2024:KHC:9302)

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; punishment order and endorsement of recovery against petitioner quashed; recovery directed to be sought from earlier officers Shivanagendra and Dhanyakumar.H.C. if at all any la

Shivakumaraswamy B L Vs the Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9302 WP No. 604 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 604 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVAKUMARASWAMY B L S/O LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) CORPORATE OFFICE, KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVANA, BANGALORE-560 009

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE-560009

¶14

THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR) KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009

¶15

THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL) KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:9302 WP No. 604 of 2024

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101

¶19

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) MAJOR WORK DIVISION KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE IMPUGNED PUNISHMENT ORDER BEARING NO.PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤/©52/ ©94/ 24732/2021-22 / ¹ DATED 13/12/2022 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WP AND THE ORDER ON APPEAL DATED 25/08/2023 BEARING NO. PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤/©52/ ©94/ 24732/2021-22 / ¹ PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ALSO THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R3 BEARING NO. PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤/©52/ ©94/ 24732/2021-22 / DATED 29/11/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-N TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9302 WP No. 604 of 2024

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned punishment order bearing No. PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤/©52/ ©94/ 24732/2021-

¶27

22 /¹ dated 13.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2 as per

¶28

Annexure-J and the order passed by respondent No.1appellate authority dated 25.8.2023 bearing No. PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤/©52/ ©94/ 24732/2021-22/¹., as per Annexure-L.

¶29

The case on hand relates to dereliction of duty

¶30

on the part of the Assistant Executive Engineers posted at Major Work Sub-Division, Tumakuru. Respondent No.2, who was the disciplinary authority has issued a showcause notice to the petitioner and his predecessors alleging that Assistant Executive Engineers who were posted at the Major Work Division, Tumakuru, failed to intimate the superiors in regard to the compensation determined by the District Court in Misc.No.38/2014. Respondent No.2 on securing the explanation from the petitioner herein has imposed penalty of withholding of one increment and has also ordered for recovery of a sum

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:9302 WP No. 604 of 2024

¶33

of Rs.6,980/-. Feeling aggrieved by the penalty imposed by respondent No.2, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1-Appellate Authority and the appellate authority has confirmed the order and consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. I have given my anxious consideration to the material on record.

¶35

Respondent No.2 after enquiry has imposed

¶36

penalty thereby denying one increment and consequently, has ordered for recovery of Rs.6,918/- on the ground that petitioner who was transferred from Rural Sub-Division to Major Work division, Tumakuru, on 13.11.2018 failed to intimate the decision rendered by the District Court in Misc.No.38/2014 wherein the petition of one Rangaiah seeking compensation was allowed in part thereby directing the respondents-authorities to pay total compensation of Rs.1,84,000/-. On examination of the order passed by respondent No.2 as well as the order

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9302 WP No. 604 of 2024

¶38

passed by the appellate authority, this Court is of the view that petitioner herein is also found to be negligent in not reporting the disposal of the petition and awarding of compensation. The finding recorded by respondent No.2 and consequent penalty imposed on the petitioner runs contrary to the explanation offered by the petitioner. Interestingly, respondent No.2–authority has culled out the details of the Assistant Executive Engineers who were posted at Major Work Division, from 22.9.2010 till 21.1.2019. When the proceedings were pending before

¶39

the District Judge in Misc.No.38/2014, it is not in dispute that one Shivanagendra was in-charge of the Major Work Division, Tumakuru and he has worked from 22.9.2010 to 5.10.2016. The said Shivanagendra was arrayed as Respondent No.3 in Misc.Petition No.38/2014 in the capacity of Assistant Executive Engineer(Electrical). When this petition was allowed vide judgment dated 30.1.2016, the said Shivanagendra was infact in-charge of the Major Work Division, Tumakuru. He was transferred on 5.10.2016 and in his place one Dhanyakumar.H.C,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:9302 WP No. 604 of 2024

¶42

assumed charge and he was working till 17.09.2018. When the judgment was rendered, Shivanagendra was still discharging his duties as Assistant Executive Engineer.

¶43

If these significant details are looked into, then this Court would find that petitioner assumed charge only on 21.1.2019 though he was transferred on 30.11.2019. No negligence can be attributed towards the petitioner herein. On the contrary, the records reveal that it is the petitioner, who after examining the records has intimated his superiors by sending two communications. From 22.9.2010 till petitioner took charge on 21.1.2019 in all four Assistant Executive Engineers were found to be serving at the post to which the petitioner was transferred. These significant details are strangely ignored by respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.1-Appellate Authority. If Shivanagendra was aware of the pendency of the proceedings and the judgment was rendered when he was still holding charge of Major Work Division, Tumakuru, no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:9302 WP No. 604 of 2024

¶46

Therefore, the penalty of withholding of one increment and proportionate recovery from the petitioner is unjustified and unreasonable. If at all, negligence can be attributed, it could be only against the said Shivanagendra and Dhanyakumar.H.C. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the department has initiated enquiry against these two Engineers and penalty is imposed and proportionate amount is recovered. On meticulous examination of the records, this Court is of the view that there is complete laxness insofar as Shivanagendra is concerned. Even Dhanyakumar.H.C., who was later posted on 10.10.2016 is also found to be negligent. Therefore, respondent No.2 without taking cognizance of these significant details has imposed penalty on petitioner though the material on record reveals that it is the petitioner who has brought to the notice of the superiors in regard to grant of compensation. The penalty imposed by respondent No.2 and the order passed by the appellate authority concurring with the penalty imposed by respondent No.2 are not sustainable. There are no materials to substantiate that

¶47

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9302 WP No. 604 of 2024

¶48

petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty. Even if there is delay at the hands of the petitioner in reporting to the superiors immediately after taking charge on 21.1.2019, a lenient view was warranted. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the penalty imposed requires interference at the hands of this Court.

¶49

In evaluating the circumstances presented, it is essential to consider the timeline and responsibilities of concerned officers. The case was decided in 2016 prior to petitioner’s tenure and it is evident that neither previous engineer nor the subsequent incumbent communicated the order awarding compensation to the owner of agriculture land. The petitioner cannot reasonably be held culpable for failing to inform superiors of a matter that predates his tenure. The failure of multiple individuals over the course of several years to notify their superiors of the compensation decree cannot be inferred as dereliction of duty insofar as petitioner is concerned. The petitioner’s action in bringing the compensation decree to the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:9302 WP No. 604 of 2024

¶52

attention of the department demonstrates diligence and accountability rather than negligence or misconduct.

¶53

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶54

following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶57

¶58

¶59

22/¹ dated 25.8.2023 by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed. Consequently, the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 dated 29.11.2023 vide Annexure-N is also quashed.

¶60

(iii) If at all, respondent No.2 intends to recover the amount, the same shall be recovered only from the earlier Assistant Executive Engineers i.e. Shivanagendra and Dhanyakumar.H.C.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

ALB

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Shivakumaraswamy B L v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivakumaraswamy B L v. the Managing Director

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

Sri. Shivakumar T.R. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (Coal Sales) Limited Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited

Mrs Geetha H Gowda @ Paggtegar Vs State of Karnataka

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Vs Karavali Ayurvedic Medical College

Prof. Geetha C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Rajendiran Vs the State of Karnataka