Kaleem Ahamad S/O Shafi Ahamad Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

KALEEM AHAMAD S/O. SHAFI AHAMAD, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HESCOM NAVANAGAR BAGALKOTE, R/O: E AND E DIVISIONAL OFFICE HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE, TQ: DIST BAGALKOTE – 587 101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (A AND HR).

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009.

¶17

THE DIRECTOR TRANSMISSION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:293 WP No. 101707 of 2024

¶20

CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009.

¶21

THE GENERAL MANAGER, A AND HRD, HESCOM, REG. OFFICE, CORPORATE OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 025.

¶22

CHIEF ENGINEER ELE, O AND M ZONE, HESCOM, BELAGAVI, SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶23

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI SANTOSH MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI PRASHANT KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, DATED 13.03.2024, BEARING NO. KAVIPRANINI/B54/46043/2023-24, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:293 WP No. 101707 of 2024

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶32

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the second respondent, by which the petitioner is placed under suspension.

¶33

Heard Sri Harsh Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5, Sri Prashant Kadadvar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri Santosh Malagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶34

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶35

The petitioner is an employee of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short ‘the Corporation) and is been in employment since 2003. An electrical contractor registers a complaint on 05.01.2024, before the Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bagalkolte, which becomes a crime against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short ‘the Act’). The reason for registration of the crime was a trap laid against the

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:293 WP No. 101707 of 2024

¶38

petitioner, not once, but trice. It is the averment, that all the three times, the trap failed.

¶39

The issue in the lis is not with regard to the trap proceedings. The sixth respondent - Lokayuktha directed the Corporation to place the petitioner under suspension. This results in impugned order of suspension dated 13.03.2024. Placing under the petitioner under suspension is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri Harsha Desai, representing the petitioner would vehemently contend that an order of suspension cannot be passed on the direction of the Lokayuktha. The competent authority has to independently apply his mind and then pass an order of suspension, if need so arises. He would contend that, placing an employee under suspension is governed under Regulation 8 of the Karnataka Electricity Board, Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for short ‘the Regulations’). He would seek quashment of the proceedings on the ground that only on the recommendation of the Lokayuktha

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:293 WP No. 101707 of 2024

¶42

the petitioner is placed under suspension and not applying its mind on the part of the Corporation.

¶43

Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 would contend that there is an allegation against the petitioner with regard to demand and acceptance of the bribe. Failure of the traps does not mean that the petitioner should not be placed under suspension. It is the power of the Corporation to place an employee under suspension, if need so arises. Merley because the Lokayuktha has communicated the Corporation to place the petitioner under suspension, would not mean that the order gets vitiated. He seeks dismissal of the petition and would also submit that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing of an appeal under Regulation 18 of the Regulations.

¶44

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

¶45

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They lie in a narrow compass. The only issue that falls for consideration is, whether the petitioner being placed under suspension would

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:293 WP No. 101707 of 2024

¶48

meet the necessity of application of mind as obtaining under Regulation 8 of the Regulations.

¶49

The trap fails on three occasions. The petitioner is placed under suspension for registration of a crime for the offence punishable under Section 7A of the Act. The issue in the lis is not with regard to trap or otherwise. After the trap, comes the impugned order. The reason for impugned order is gathered from the order itself. The reference in the order dated 13.03.2024, reads as follows:

¶50

**“�ಷಯ: ��ೕ.ಖ�ೕಂ ಅಹಮ�, �ಾಯ��ಾ�ಹಕ ಇಂ��ಯ�(�), �ಾಯ� ಮತು !ಾಲನ �$ಾಗ, &ೆ(ಾ)ಂ, ಾಗಲ�ೋ,ೆ ರವರನು/ (ೇ�ೆ0ಂದ ಅ2ಾನತು 3ೊ4ಸುವ ಬ3ೆ7.*

¶51

ಓದ9ಾ:;ೆ: <�ೕ= ಮ&ಾ�>ೕ?ಕರು, ಕ@ಾ�ಟಕ 9ೋ�ಾಯುಕ

¶52

**ೆಂಗಳCರು ರವರ ಪತ� ಸಂEೆF:9ೋG/ಐಎK �(�)/ಎL-01/Pಆ�.1/2024/ ಾಗಲ�ೋ,ೆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:

¶53

23.02.2024.

¶54

Based upon the said reference, the order is as follows:

¶55

Xxx xxxxx xxxx

¶56

DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: PÀ«¥Àæ¤¤/©54/46043/2023-24,

¶57

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13 MAR 2024

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:293 WP No. 101707 of 2024

¶59

**��ೕ.ಖ�ೕಂ ಅಹಮ�, �ಾಯ��ಾ�ಹಕ ಇಂ��ಯ�(�), �ಾಯ� ಮತು !ಾಲನ �$ಾಗ, &ೆ(ಾ)ಂ ಾಗಲ�ೋ,ೆ ರವರ �ರುದ[ ಇ9ಾEಾ �\ಾರ]ೆ ಹೂಡುವ ಹಕ)ನು/ �ಾ0_>P, ಸದ>ಯವರನು/ ಕೂಡ9ೇ `ಾ>3ೆ ಬರುವಂaೆ (ೇ�ೆ0ಂದ ಅ2ಾನತು 3ೊ4ಸ9ಾ:;ೆ.*

¶60

ಸದ>ಯವರು ತಮb ಅ2ಾನತು ಅವcಯ�dನ �eಾಸವನು/ ಕೂಡ9ೇ f4ಸತಕ)ದು_. ಸದ> ಅc�ಾ>ಯ �ರುದ[ದ �ಸು ಕ�ಮ�ೆ) ಸಂಬಂcPದ ಎ9ಾd ಪತ� ವFವ&ಾರಗಳನು/ ಸದ> �eಾಸ�ೆ) 2ಾಡ9ಾಗುವgದು. ಅದ�ಾರಣ ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧದ�d ರ�ಾ�ಸ9ಾಗುವ ಪತ�/ಸೂಚ@ಾಪತ�/ಆ;ೇಶಗಳm ಮುಂaಾದವgಗಳm ಸಂಬಂcPದವ>3ೆ ಾ>nಾಗ;ೆ oಂpರು:ದರೂ, �ಸು ಕ�ಮ�ೆ) ಸಂಬಂcPದಂaೆ ಅವgಗಳm ಾ>nಾ:ರುವg;ಾ: ಪ>ಗqಸ9ಾಗುವgದು &ಾಗೂ ಮುಂpನ ಸೂಕ ಕ�ಮವನು/ aೆ3ೆದು�ೊಳr9ಾಗುವgದು.

¶61

ಅ2ಾನತು ಅವcಯ�d ಸದ>ಯವರು nಾವg;ೇ �ೆಲಸ ಅಥ�ಾ �ಾF!ಾರದ�d ತಮbನು/ aೊಡ:ಸಾರದು &ಾಗೂ ಸ?ಮ ಅc�ಾ>ಯವರ ಅನುಮf ಇಲd;ೆ �ೇಂದ� (ಾtನವನು/ uಟುv &ೋಗಾರದು. ಈ ಸಂಬಂಧದ�d ಸದ> ಅc�ಾ>ಯು ಮುಚw4�ೆಯನು/ �ೕಡತಕ)ದು_, ಕ�ಪ�� @ೌಕರರ (ೇ�ಾ �ಬಂಧ@ೆಗಳ �ಬಂಧ@ೆ 84(1)(u) zಪ{q 2 ಮತು 3 ನು/ !ಾ�ಸ*ೇ�ೆಂಬ ಸೂಚ@ೆ|ಂp3ೆ ಸದ>ಯವ>3ೆ �ೕವ@ಾ}ಾರ ಭaೆFಯನು/ ಮಂಜೂರು 2ಾಡ9ಾ:;ೆ.

¶62

¸À»/-

¶63

ವFವ(ಾtಪಕ �;ೇ�ಶಕರು.

¶64

(Emphasis added)

¶65

The petitioner is placed under suspension by the aforesaid order. The reason for placing the petitioner under suspension is, the reference. The reference is communication

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-D:293 WP No. 101707 of 2024

¶68

by the ADGP, Lokayuktha, dated 23.02.2024, to place the petitioner under suspension. The preamble for placing the petitioner under suspension clearly indicates that it is based upon the communication by the ADGP, Lokayuktha. Therefore, it is on the basis of the directions of the ADGP Lokayuktha.

¶69

Regulation 8 of the Regulations, deals with

¶70

suspension, reads as follows:

¶71

“ 8 SUSPENSIONS :-

¶72

1. The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Board in this behalf may place a Board employee under suspension;

¶73

a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or

¶74

b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial:”

¶75

1. Where a Board employee has been suspended by an authority other than the Board and final orders in the inquiry pending against him have not been passed within a period of six months from the date of order or suspension, the case shall be reported to the Board for such orders as it may deem it.”

¶76

(Emphasis supplied)

¶77

9 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC-D:293 WP No. 101707 of 2024

¶79

The afore-quoted regulation clearly indicates that the order of suspension should be passed on good and sufficient reasons, which necessarily would mean that on the opinion of the competent authority to place the employee under suspension or otherwise. It cannot be on the dictate of an external agency, the Lokayuktha, which is an external agency in the case at hand. If the order of suspension would have been passed on independent application of mind and that indication is found in the reasons recorded in the order, the order would not have called for interference. The order in the case at hand is passed only on the directions of the ADGP, Lokyauktha, it is therefore, sans countenanced.

¶80

Though the power to place an employee under suspension does not have any condition stipulated with regard to pro and cons, it is trite law that orders of suspension should be passed after due application of mind and not at the directions of another agency. In that light, reserving liberty to the competent authority to pass orders of suspension, if needed, bearing in mind the observation made in the course of the order, the petition deserves to succeed.

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC-D:293 WP No. 101707 of 2024

¶82

10 -

¶83

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

a. The writ petition is allowed.

¶86

b. The order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the second respondent is quashed.

¶87

c. The competent authority is at liberty to pass orders of suspension against the petitioner, in accordance with law, if need arises, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶88

SD/(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶89

JUDGE

¶90

CT-ASC

¶91

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Kaleem Ahamad S/O Shafi Ahamad v. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleem Ahamad S/O Shafi Ahamad v. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yamanappa Madar S/O Shivanappa Madar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharanappa Pujar S/O Veerabadrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Pujar S/O Marachappa Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bhavikatte Bharamappa S/O Hanumanthappa Vs Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies (Arcs)

B. Neelakant Vs N.C. Patil

Sri. Chennappa Basappa Sogalad S/O Basappa Sogalad Vs the State of Karnataka