Disposed¶5

H T Shankar v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2025WP/17698/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, WP No. 17698 of 2018 (S-RES), decided 19.06.2025 by Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad; NC: 2025:KHC:21136. Disciplinary penalty imposed by Executive Engineer (Electrical), BESCOM, Tumkur; alternative remedy of appeal under Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations 1987; appeal memo dated 11.05.2018 pending before competent authority; directions to furnish appeal copy and dispose of appeal within two months; writ petition disposed of without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to furnish one more copy of the appeal memo dated 11.05.2018 to the competent authority within two weeks; competent authority to dispose of the appeal within two months from receipt of the copy of the appeal, in accordance with law. ¶5

H T Shankar Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure-G) passed by respondent No.2 imposing penalty on the petitioner should be quashed. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The writ petition was disposed of, the Court expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the disciplinary penalty; the challenge to the penalty order was not adjudicated on merits.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner was directed to furnish one more copy of the appeal memo dated 11.05.2018 to the competent authority within two weeks from the date of the order.

¶4

Key takeaways

The competent authority was directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the appeal, and in accordance with law.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a Junior Engineer (Kunigal Sub-Division, Tumkur) challenging the penalty order dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure-G, Order No. KA NI EM(V)/LE A/KI A SA/2017-18) passed by respondent No.2, the disciplinary authority. Respondents contended an alternative remedy of appeal before the competent authority under the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations 1987; counsel for the petitioner stated that an appeal filed on 11.05.2018 remained unconsidered. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court directed the petitioner to furnish one more copy of the appeal memo to the competent authority within two weeks, and directed the competent authority to dispose of the appeal within two months from receipt of the copy, in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21136 WP No. 17698 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 17698 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

H T SHANKAR S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: JUNIOR ENGINEER KUNIGAL SUB-DIVISION TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009.

¶15

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) C.O AND M DIVISION, BESCOM

¶17

TUMKUR-572101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 29.01.2018 BEING PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ORDER NO: KA NI EM(V)/LE A/KI A SA /2017-18 DATED: 29.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:21136 WP No. 17698 of 2018

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G, whereby the disciplinary authority has imposed penalty on the petitioner.

¶26

On service of notice from this Court, the respondents have filed statement of objections and have taken a specific contention that against the impugned order passed

¶27

by the respondent No.2, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations 1987.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 11.05.2018 itself, the petitioner has filed an

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21136 WP No. 17698 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

appeal before the competent authority. So far, the authority has not considered the same.

¶32

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to furnish one more copy of the appeal memo dated 11.05.2018 to the competent authority within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the competent authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the appeal and in accordance with law.

¶33

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶35

DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16

H T Shankar v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H T Shankar v. the Managing Director

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

Sri Vishwabharathi Education Society (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chikkathayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagesh E Vs State of Karnataka

C Gangadharaiah Vs State of Karnataka by Its

Smt. Sudhamani M M Vs the Managing Director

Sri Ananda N., Vs the State of Karnataka