Sri Manuswaraj S Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI MANUSWARAJ S S/O SIDDARAJU B N. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR POWER MAN, (NOW UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION), KUDERU SECTION OFFICE, SANTEMARAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGARA DIVISION, CHAMARAJNAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. THYAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROOM NO.236, 2^ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. BR AMBEDKAR STREET, BENGALURU-560001

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED. NO.29,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51073 WP No. 22710 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

80 FT ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA II STAGE, MYSORE-570017

¶20

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, CHAMRAJANAGAR KODAGU CIRCLE, SRI HARSHA ROAD. MYSORE-570001

¶21

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, O AND M DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

[BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 SMT/MISS. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4 (VK FILED)]

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING NO.KANIEM(VI)/LE/SALE/SISA(SA)/CHA.NAGARA/CHA.NAGARA /2024-25/CYS-74 DATED 27/05/2024 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANN-H AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES BEARING NO. KAANIEM(VI)/LE/SALE/SISA(SA)/ 2024-25/C-1754-58 DATED 05/07/2024 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANN-K.

¶25

ii) CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE R2 TO 4 TO REINSTATE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER AS BEFORE AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THEREOF INCLUDING CONTINUATION OF SERVICE.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:51073 WP No. 22710 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the

¶33

following prayers:

¶34

i ) issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order of suspension bearing No.KaNiEm(Vi)/Le/SaLe/SiSa(Sa)/Cha.Nagara/20 24-25/Cys-74 dated 27.05.2024 issued by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-H and consequently quash the impugned show cause notice enclosed along with the articles of charges bearing No. KaaNiEm(Vi)/Le/SaLe/SiSa(Sa)/2024-25/C-175458 dated 05.07.2024 issued by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-K; and

¶35

ii) Consequently, direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to reinstate the services of the petitioner as before and grant all consequential benefits flowing thereof including continuation of service, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:51073 WP No. 22710 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition

¶40

are as follows:

¶41

One Girish Kumar Y.N., had submitted a

¶42

representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister alleging that many employees of the corporation in

¶43

Chamarajanagar are working since so many years without getting transfer. Respondent No.2 directed the 3^rd respondent to take necessary steps on the basis of the complaint submitted by Girish Kumar Y.N. Respondent No.3 directed the 4^th respondent to obtain the written explanation about 10 employees who are working in Chamarajanagar Division since so many years. Respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner asking his explanation. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that he has not committed

¶44

any misconduct and the charges levied against him are all false and he has no nexus with the complaint.

¶45

Respondent No.4 issued an impugned order of

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51073 WP No. 22710 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

suspension dated 27.05.2024 keeping the petitioner

¶49

out of service.

¶50

Respondents have also decided to initiate enquiry against the petitioner and respondent No.4 issued the show cause notice enclosing article of charges. The petitioner has submitted his reply stating that he has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the article of charges and requested to reinstate him by revoking the order of suspension. However, the same has not been considered by the respondents and the subsistence allowance is also not paid. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved by the order of suspension and show cause notice enclosing the article of charges, filed this writ petition.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51073 WP No. 22710 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶55

show cause notice and article of charges issued on 05.07.2024, is not binding the appointing authority. The show cause notice and the article of charges issued by respondent No.4 is without jurisdiction. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to set aside the show cause notice along with enclosing the article of charges.

¶56

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 fairly concedes that the show cause notice enclosing the article of charges is by the in-charge officer and not by the appointing authority. She submits that if the court allows the writ petition, a liberty may be reserved to the respondents to initiate a fresh inquiry. Hence, prays to dispose of the writ petition.

¶57

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:51073 WP No. 22710 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is working

¶62

in respondent No.2 - Corporation. One Girish Kumar Y.N., submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice alleging that many employees are working in the Corporation in Chamarajanagar for more than 10 years. Respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to obtain a written explanation from the employees who are working in Chamarajanagar Division since many years. Respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner seeking an explanation. Though, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice dated 27.03.2024, respondent No.4 without considering the said reply submitted by the petitioner, passed an order of suspension on 27.05.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.4 initiated an enquiry against the petitioner. Respondent No.4, who was in-charge has issued a show cause notice enclosing the article of charges.

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:51073 WP No. 22710 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits

¶66

that, now the order of suspension was revoked vide order dated 01.08.2024. In the view of revocation of order of suspension, the prayer for quashing the order of suspension does not survive for consideration. It appears that insofar as issuing the show cause notice is concerned, admittedly the said show cause notice enclosing the article of charges was not issued by the appointing authority. Though the show cause notice enclosing the article of charges was issued by the incharge executive engineer (electrical), but not by the executive engineer (electrical) as per the regulations dated 31.07.2021. It is necessary to consider circular dated 31.07.2021, which reads as follows:

¶67

"4. ಮುಂದುವ�ೆದು, ಉ�ದ ಪ��ಾರ ವ�ವ�ೆ� ಪ�ಕರಣಗಳ�� (ಉ�ಾಹರ�ೆ�ೆ :ರ�ೆ /ತರ�ೇ! ಅ#ಾನತು%/&ವೃ!%/ವ�ಾ(ವ�ೆ /ಪ�ೋನ*!+ಂದ ಹು�ೆ, -ೆರ.ಾದ ಸಂದಭ(ಗಳ��) 1ೕ�ನ ಕಂ23ೆ 2 ರ�� ಸ456ಕ78ರುವಂ-ೆ . ಕ.9.ಮಂ :ೌಕರರ(ವ<ೕ(ಕರಣ =ಸು% &ಯಂತ�ಣ ಮತು% 1ೕಲ@ನ9)&ಬಂಧ:ೆಗಳC-1987ರ ಅನDಯ ಕ�ಮಗಳನು* ಜರು<ಸುವ ಅಧ3ಾರಗಳನು* Fೊರತುಪ28, ಉ�ದ ಎHಾ� ಅI3ಾರಗಳನು* ಮತು%

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:51073 WP No. 22710 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

ಕತ(ವ�ಗಳನು* &ವ(Jಸುವ�� KಾವL�ೇ ಬದHಾವ�ೆ ಇರುವLNಲ� ಎಂದು ಸ456ಕ78�ೆ ."

¶71

From the perusal of the circular which discloses that in-charge officer cannot issue a show cause notice enclosing the article of charges. Admittedly, in the instant case, respondent No.4 is the appointing authority, but respondent No.4 has not issued the show cause notice enclosing the article of charges. The show cause notice enclosing the article of charges issued by the respondents, is contrary to the circular dated 31.07.2021. Hence, the impugned show-cause notice is arbitrary, erroneous and without jurisdiction. Hence, on this ground alone the impugned showcause notice attaching the article of charges vide Annexure-K is liable to be set aside.

¶72

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part .

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:51073 WP No. 22710 of 2024

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

ii. The impugned show cause notice enclosed along with the article of charges dated 05.07.2024 vide Annexure-K issued by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed.

¶78

iii. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Insofar as consequential benefits are concerned, that will be subject to the outcome of the enquiry.

¶79

iv. A liberty is reserved to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to initiate inquiry in accordance with law, if so desired.

¶80

In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2024

¶81

does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly disposed of.

¶82

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶83

SKS CT:KHV

Sri Manuswaraj S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manuswaraj S v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt Nandini B Vs the State of Karnataka

Byrappa Vs M. Paramesh

Sri Obalaiah Vs Sri Lakshminarasimhaiah

Dr Maithreyi H L Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Godwin Santhosh D Souza Vs the State of Karnataka

Sudharshana v K Vs State of Karnataka