Smt. Sudhamani M M Vs the Managing Director

SMT. SUDHAMANI M.M. W/O B. BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) O AND M SUB-DIVISION, BESCOM, JAGALUR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577528

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009

¶15

THE DIRECTOR ( A AND HR) KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YATISH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHWIN G. RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21400 WP No. 25852 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

IMPUGNED FINDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER BEARING NO.KPTCL/B55/41117/2013-14, DATED 12.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT ALONGWITH FINAL NOTICE BEARING NO. KPTCL/B55/B53/41117-2013-14 DATED 17.08.2024 VIDE ANNEXURES-P AND Q RESPECTIVELY TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has called in question the second enquiry report dated 12.07.2024 vide Annexure-P and final show-cause notice dated 17.08.2024 at Annexure-Q.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in respondent No.2-Corporation. When she was discharging duties as the Assistant Executive Engineer, the departmental enquiry was initiated on 17.09.2016 on allegations of misappropriation of funds. On 22.03.2022, the Enquiry Officer-M. Ramachandran, retired District and Sessions Judge, submitted a report stating that the charges leveled

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21400 WP No. 25852 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

against the petitioner have not been proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority did not accept the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer-M. Ramachandran and order was passed for a de novo enquiry. Thereafter, respondent No.2 appointed one Sri. Basavaraj S. Tadahal, retired District and Sessions Judge as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry officer submitted the report dated 12.07.2024 vide Annexure-P stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved. Pursuant to the impugned order, a final show-cause notice at Annexure-Q was issued to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Sri. Srinivasa .K, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the enquiry report submitted by the first Enquiry Officer the charges against the petitioner have not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, before taking a decision to initiate a de novo enquiry, has not issued notice to the petitioner. The initiation of the de

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21400 WP No. 25852 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

novo enquiry is contrary to law. Therefore, the enquiry report submitted by the second Enquiry Officer vide Annexure-P and the consequent final show-cause notice at Annexure-Q may be set aside.

¶32

Sri. Yathish .S, learned counsel for respondent

¶33

Nos.1 and 2 submits that before initiation of a de novo enquiry, the notice had been issued to the petitioner and she had participated in the enquiry. Now she cannot challenge the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer-Sri Basavaraj S. Tadahal as per Annexure-P and he further contended that the second show-cause notice has been issued vide Annexure-Q calling upon the petitioner to give a reply. The petitioner can give a reply taking all her contentions and the Competent Authority will consider the same and will pass the order.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers.

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21400 WP No. 25852 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

As per the report submitted by the Enquiry

¶38

Officer Sri M. Ramachandran, retired District and Sessions Judge, the charges against the petitioner have not been proved. Under the BESCOM Regulations, if the Disciplinary Authority is not satisfied with the enquiry report, they can

¶39

order for de novo enquiry or if they have sufficient materials to reverse the findings, they can pass the order in accordance with law. Since the respondent No.2 has taken a decision that the matter requires a de novo enquiry, they appointed one Basavaraj S. Tadahal, retired District and Sessions Judge as an Enquiry Officer and the petitioner has participated in the enquiry. The second Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and issued a second show-cause notice at Annexure-Q.

¶40

Under these circumstances, the petitioner be

¶41

permitted to file a detailed objection to Annexure-Q and to the appointment of the second Enquiry officer, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:21400 WP No. 25852 of 2024

¶43

6 -

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

order. The respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are left open. The Competent Authority is directed to pass a final order within six weeks

¶46

from the date of submission of the reply.

¶47

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶48

MBM

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Smt. Sudhamani M M v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sudhamani M M 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

Sri Ananda N., Vs the State of Karnataka

H T Shankar Vs the Managing Director