Dismissed¶49

The General Manager v. Sri. K. Nagaraj

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2025WA/1307/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service law; disciplinary proceedings; disproportionate punishment; dismissal for two days' unauthorized absence (22.05.2009-23.05.2009) held excessive; charge sheet issued about five years after 2005 misdemeanor without justification; enquiry report copy not furnished (Single Judge finding); reinstatement with continuity of service, no back-wages; writ appeal under S.4 Karnataka High Court Act dismissed; CESCOM Mysuru; Junior Assistant; cash chest duplicate key; IA No.2/2024 disposed as infructuous; NC: 2025:KHC:622-DB.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; upon dismissal of the appeal, the learned Single Judge's directions - reinstatement with continuity of service within two months, without back-wages - stand. ¶49

The General Manager Vs Sri. K. Nagaraj — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; upon dismissal of the appeal, the learned Single Judge's directions - reinstatement with continuity of service within two months, without back-wages - stand.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent for unauthorized absence, including absence of two days on 22.05.2009 and 23.05.2009 (Charge No.4), was disproportionate. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

Absence of two days (22.05.2009 and 23.05.2009, Charge No.4) could not have resulted in the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service; the punishment was disproportionate to the charge.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The circumstance that a duplicate key had to be made to open the cash chest during the respondent's two-day absence does not make the charge so serious as to entail dismissal; nothing precluded the appellants from sending a person/employee to the respondent's house to retrieve the cash-chest key.

¶43

Key takeaways

No justification was forthcoming for issuing the charge sheet after a period of about five years from the alleged misdemeanor of 2005.ratio¶42
The writ appeal has no merit and is dismissed; consequently the learned Single Judge's order setting aside the dismissal and directing reinstatement stands, and IA No.2/2024 is disposed of as infructuous.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WA No. 1307 of 2023 (S-DIS), NC: 2025:KHC:622-DB - Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd. (through its General Manager; Chief Engineer (Ele) & Appellate Authority; and Superintendent (Ele) & Disciplinary Authority) v. K. Nagaraj, Junior Assistant (since dismissed). Division Bench (V Kameswar Rao and S Rachaiah, JJ.; judgment per V Kameswar Rao, J.) dismisses the writ appeal filed under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act against the learned Single Judge's order dated 01.09.2023 in WP No.509/2012(S-DIS), which had set aside the respondent's dismissal from service and directed reinstatement with continuity of service (no back-wages). Holds: (i) absence of two days (22.05.2009 and 23.05.2009, Charge No.4) could not justify dismissal - the punishment was disproportionate; (ii) the circumstance that a duplicate key had to be made to open the cash chest does not aggravate the charge, as the employer could have retrieved the key from the employee's house; (iii) no justification was forthcoming for issuing the charge sheet about five years after the alleged misdemeanor of 2005. IA No.2/2024 disposed of as infructuous.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:622-DB WA No. 1307 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2023 (S-DIS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE GENERAL MANAGER,

¶11

CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, 120, MCC COLONY, JYOTHI NAGAR, MYSURU-570 011.

¶12

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MYSURU RANGE, CESCOM, MYSURU-570 011.

¶13

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT (ELE) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CESCOM, MYSORE.

¶16

(BY SRI. S SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE)

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI. K. NAGARAJ, S/O. LATE KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:622-DB WA No. 1307 of 2023

¶21

JUNIOR ASSISTANT (SINCE DISMISSED), CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, NO. 120, MCC COLONY, JYOTHINAGAR, MYSURU-570 011.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/09/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.509/2012(S-DIS) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THAT WRIT PETITION.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶29

The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the order dated 01.09.2023 in WP No.509/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has

¶30

allowed the writ petition by stating in paragraphs No.9 to 13 as under:

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:622-DB WA No. 1307 of 2023

¶32

“9. In my view, having regard to the charges of unauthorized absence for a few days, the respondents could not have imposed a disproportionate punishment of dismissal from service.

¶33

10. It is also noticed that the copy of the enquiry report has also not been furnished to the petitioner and this is yet another ground to set aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, which has been confirmed improperly by the Appellate Authority.

¶34

11. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of dismissal from service liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.

¶35

12. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner is not entitled to any back-wages.

¶36

13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.”

¶37

The submission of learned counsel for the

¶38

appellants by drawing our attention to the charge sheet issued to the respondent is that, the charges framed are of very serious nature and as such, the learned Single Judge

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:622-DB WA No. 1307 of 2023

¶40

overlooking the charges could not have passed the impugned order.

¶41

On a specific query as to how the charge sheet

¶42

was issued after a period of five years from the date of alleged misdemeanor in the year 2005, no justification is forthcoming. Even the charge No.4 on which much stress was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, the same also relates to absence for two days on 22.05.2009 and 23.05.2009 respectively. Surely absence of two days could not have resulted in the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service.

¶43

The plea that because of the absence of the respondent on those two days, a duplicate key had to be made, to open the cash chest also, is not appealing as the absence of two days cannot result in a harsh punishment of dismissal. In any case, nothing precluded the appellants to send a person/employee to the house of the respondent to retrieve the key of the cash chest. Having not done that and got a duplicate key made would not

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:622-DB WA No. 1307 of 2023

¶46

make the charge of absence for two days so serious to

¶47

entail dismissal.

¶48