Mr Munir Badshah Chikkabar Vs Managing Director

MR. MUNIR BADSHAH CHIKKABAR S/O. HASAN SAB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD. GHATAPRABHA HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT, HIDKAL DAM, HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM TALUK-591 107. NOW RESIDENT OF TYPE-3, NO.7, RTPS COLONY, SHAKTHI NAGAR, RAICHUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-584 170.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH MS. VISMAYA D.A., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA MULTI-STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶17

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-9 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:38600-DB WP No. 4518 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-01.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. ASHVINI PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01-02/02/2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ORDER NO.A1 P2 D/3339 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶30

The present writ petition has been filed by impugning the penalty order dated 1^st /2^nd February 2023(Annexure-A) passed by the Managing Director of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited inflicting punishment on the petitioner for stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, on the recommendation made by learned Lokayukta in its report dated 25.05.2021. The petitioner was working as an

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:38600-DB WP No. 4518 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Assistant Executive Engineer(Electrical) in the office of Superintendent Engineer, Ghataprabha Hydro Electric Project, Hidkal Dam, Hukkeri Taluk, Belguam Taluk, Raichur District.

¶35

Unfortunately, one Junior Engineer Praveen died on 14.05.2012, probably because of the electrocution. The petitioner being immediate superior authority along with Executive Engineer faced the inquiry before the Lokayukta on the complaint, for two charges - (i) Praveen, S/o Pandurang Jadav was working as Junior engineer, at KPCL division, Hidkal village, Hukkeri Taluk, Belagavi District, on 14.05.2012 at 11.40 a.m. in Upper End Bracket

¶36

Housing of Generator-2 of the Power House, as you DGO-1 and 2 did not take any precautions and shown negligence, said person died to electricity accident, and (ii) You have not informed the matter of death of above shown Praveen S/o. Pandurang Jadhav to the concerned Inspector of Electricity as provided under Rule 44A of

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:38600-DB WP No. 4518 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Rules, 1956'), and you have violated the said rules.

¶41

The Enquiry Officer did not find charge No.1 regarding negligence proved. However, in respect of charge No.2 regarding not sending the report of the accident/incident within the period of 48 hours in the form prescribed, as provided under Rule 44A of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, and therefore, recommended for appropriate action against the petitioner. The petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment, by the impugned order, of the stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.

¶42

The petitioner in his defence inter-alia has submitted ExD1(Annexure-G) report of the incident to the Executive Engineer on the same day i.e., 14^th May 2012, as soon as, he came to know about the incident. The Executive Engineer also forwarded the said report to the Superintendent Engineer on the same day, which is evident from the said document itself. Despite, the aforesaid document having been brought to the notice of

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:38600-DB WP No. 4518 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer held charge of not sending report within the prescribed time limit of 48 hours proved against the petitioner.

¶47

We have perused the inquiry report. Though it is mentioned that the petitioner had submitted the said document, but, no finding has been recorded on the aforesaid document in paragraph 34, wherein, the petitioner has been found to have violated Rule 44A of Rules, 1956. Though the Enquiry Officer did not find there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner or the Executive Engineer, but the Enquiry Officer found that the charge of violating Rule 44A of the Rules, 1956 got proved against the petitioner.

¶48

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, no doubt, we are of the opinion that there was a statutory duty of the petitioner to intimate the incident within a period of 48 hours, which he in fact did by informing the Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer on the same day informed the said incident to

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38600-DB WP No. 4518 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the Superintendent Engineer. It is Superintendent Engineer, who forwarded the said report of the incident only on 12.07.2012. In view thereof, holding the petitioner

¶52

liable for not reporting the incident within the period of 48 hours does not appear to be correct in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶53

We, therefore, set aside the punishment so far as the petitioner is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, the petitioner had informed his superior immediately after the incident, and the Executive Engineer, who was immediate superior to the petitioner, had informed to the Superintendent Engineer, under whom, the petitioner and the Executive Engineer were working at the relevant point of time. Therefore, if any mistake or infraction of provision of Rule 44A of the Rules, 1956 was committed, it was by the Superintendent Engineer and not by the petitioner. In view thereof, we set aside the punishment order, as in our opinion, the charge of infraction of Rule 44A of the Rules,

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:38600-DB WP No. 4518 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

1956 did not get proved against the petitioner. Thus, we allow this writ petition and set aside the order of punishment dated:1/2.02.2023, inflicted on the petitioner.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶61

MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Mr Munir Badshah Chikkabar v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Munir Badshah Chikkabar v. 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

Salman Khan Vs Syed Yakub

Shri Anand R Vs Shri Dinesha H P

Smt. Meenakshi Vs Sri. Girish. N

Smt. P.S. Jayashree Vs Kiran Kumar

The Manager Vs Vishalakshi

Sri Nanjunda Swamy, Vs the State of Karnataka