Partly allowed

S N Rajesh v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/6978/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractual Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidi's termination for alleged misconduct without enquiry challenged as stigmatic. Court quashed the termination order and reinstated the petitioner, denying wages for the interim period, with liberty to the respondents to conduct fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Termination order dated 01.12.2022 quashed; petitioner reinstated without wages for the interim period; respondents free to conduct fresh proceedings.

S N Rajesh Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20661 WP No. 6978 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6978 OF 2024 (S-DIS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S N RAJESH S/O S K NARAYANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO. 2923, THIMARAYASWAMY NILYA, VIVAKANANDANAGAR, BANGARPET TOWN - 563101 KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR K C.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE, KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶13

CHIEF ENGINEER (EL) BENGALURU RURAL AREA ZONE, NO.1-4, I T 5^TH FLOOR, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL TOWN, RAJAJINAGAR, BESCOM, BENGALURU - 560044.

¶14

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (EL) O AND M CIRCLE,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:20661 WP No. 6978 of 2024

¶17

M.B.ROAD, BESCOM, OPPOSITE YAMAHA SHOWROOM KOLAR - 563101.

¶18

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL) O AND M DIVISION, CHAMPION REEFS, BESCOM, K.G.F. - 563117.

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL) O AND M SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, BANGARPET - 563101 KGF DIVISION KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHESHA KARTHIK M REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R4 AND R5 AND ISSUE A WRIT CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE ORDER BY QUASHING THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 1.12.22 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M; DIRECTION TO THE R3 TO RESTORE THE PETITIONER DIRECTION TO THE R3, TO RESTORE THE PETITIONER SERVICE AND COMPENSATE THE PETITIONER FOR LOSS OF PAY DURING THE TERMINATION PERIOD INCLUDING ARREARS DUE FOR ABOUT 8 MONTHS PRIOR TO TERMINATION.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:20661 WP No. 6978 of 2024

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner, who was working as a Grama Vidhyuth Prathinidi [ GVP ] with the respondents, is aggrieved by the third respondent's order dated 01.12.2022 [ Annexure-M ], and the second respondent by this order has terminated the petitioner's services on the ground that his services are found to be unsatisfactory.

¶28

The petitioner's grievance against this order is considered in the light of the question as framed by this Court while hearing the learned counsels for the parties on one of the previous hearing dates. The question reads as under:

¶29

"Whether a contractual employee can be removed from service on allegations that are stigmatic without due opportunity in a duly constituted enquiry only because the contractual terms enable termination of service upon issuance of notice."

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:20661 WP No. 6978 of 2024

¶32

The petitioner's service, admittedly under contract, is terminated by the impugned order for reasons that the petitioner has collected meter reading charges from the consumers but without issuing any receipts; that he has failed to issue bills after recording the meter readings in time and that he has not taken any measures to initiate disconnection despite some complaints by the consumers with the respondents. The third respondent has also observed that the petitioner has not responded to the multiple notices issued in this regard.

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondents proposes to contest the petition on the ground that the petitioner's remedy must necessarily be in terms of the contract and not otherwise. At this stage, this Court must find out, as is required by the question framed, whether the third respondent could have terminated the petitioner's services without even holding an enquiry.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20661 WP No. 6978 of 2024

¶35

It is trite that even in the case of employees on contract, if their services are terminated for reasons that are stigmatic, an enquiry would be necessary. The petitioner, when it is undisputed that such enquiry is not held, must necessarily succeed as against the third respondent's impugned order dated 01.12.2022 but with liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action. However, the petitioner is not allowed any wages for the period that he has been without work because the petitioner has failed to bring on record any material to indicate that he has been without any work. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

[A] The petition is allowed in part and the third respondent's order dated 01.12.2022 is quashed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner but without any wages for the period he has

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20661 WP No. 6978 of 2024

¶39

been under termination because of the impugned order.

¶40

[B] The respondents will be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for commencement of due enquiry and appropriate orders. The petitioner is not allowed any wages for the period that he has been without work because the petitioner has failed to bring on record any material to indicate that he has been without any work.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

S N Rajesh v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S N Rajesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan B K Vs the Karnataka Residential

Sri Anantha Servegara Vs the State of Karnataka

A R Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

S.John Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vijaya N Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Radhika H P Vs Mangalore University Mudipu- Konaje