Allowed¶74

Sri R Nanjundappa v. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2025WP/5351/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSDL disciplinary recovery dispute; Annexure-Y order dated 10.02.2022 quashed for ignoring Enquiry Officer's report dated 30.06.2015 despite remand from WP 21160/2017 (order dated 08.07.2021); fresh remand with 8-week timeline; Article 226; KSDL Conduct and Disciplinary Action Rules 1984; recovery figures Rs.9,91,006.22/- and Rs.11,69,287/- both appear in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order vide Annexure-Y dated 10.02.2022 quashed; matter remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass an appropriate order in terms of the order in W.P.No.21160/2017, i.e., to take the Enquiry Officer's report dated 30.06.2015 to its logical end in the manner known to law within 8 weeks; pending IAs disposed of accordingly. ¶74

Sri R Nanjundappa Vs Karnataka Soaps and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure-Y), passed by the respondent-Company without considering the Enquiry Officer's report dated 30.06.2015, is in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21160/2017 and is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶64

Court's answer

The respondent-Company did not consider the Enquiry Officer's report dated 30.06.2015 to its logical end in the manner known to law; on the contrary, it recorded in Para No.11 of the impugned order that the report had already been rejected by the then Managing Director, a contention not accepted by the Co-ordinate Bench in the earlier writ petition.

¶64

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure-Y) is not in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21160/2017, the respondent-Company having again failed to consider the enquiry report dated 30.06.2015; hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ashok S. Kinagi, J.), WP No. 5351 of 2022 (S-RES), decided 10.11.2025: Writ petition under Article 226 by a former Manager of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. allowed; order No. KSDL:MD/HEARD/2021-22/1303 dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure-Y) quashed because, on remand after W.P.No.21160/2017 (order dated 08.07.2021 quashing the recovery order dated 15.03.2017), the respondent-Company again failed to consider the Enquiry Officer's report dated 30.06.2015 — which had held the charges unproved insofar as financial loss to the Company — and instead recorded that the report had already been rejected by the then Managing Director; matter remitted afresh to the Disciplinary Authority to take the enquiry report to its logical end within eight weeks.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 5351 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. R. NANJUNDAPPA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A NO.1/208, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, AVALAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P. N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LIMITED #27, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, BENGALURU - PUNE HIGH WAY, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 055. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE CHAIRMAN,

¶18

KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LIMITED, #27, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, BENGALURU - PUNE HIGHWAY, RAJAJINAGAR,

¶19

BENGALURU - 560 055.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO. KSDL:MD/HEARD/2021-22/1303 DATED 10.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-Y ISSUED BY THE R-1 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LIMITED CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION RULES 1984 AND THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the

¶30

following prayer:

¶31

(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, quashing the order No.KSDL:MD/HEARD/2021-22/1303 dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure-Y) issued by the 1^st respondent as the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited Conduct and Disciplinary Action Rules 1984 and the Report of the Enquiry Officer.

¶32

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to release and pay all the retirement benefits viz., Gratuity, Leave Encashment and pay the full salary during the suspension period and all other monetary benefits along with 18% interest per annum and grant all the consequential benefits consequent upon quashing the orders at Annexure-Y.

¶33

(c) Direct the contenting respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

¶34

The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this

¶35

writ petition are as follows:

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The petitioner was working as a Manager in the respondent-Company. The respondent-Company

¶39

transferred the petitioner and posted to DPG section in 2012 and passed an order of suspension on 19/20.06.2014. The suspension order was revoked and

¶40

thereafter article of charges was issued on 30.09.2014/08.10.2014. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and Enquiry Officer has submitted a report to the management holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner has not been proved insofar as financial loss caused to the Company. The said report was not furnished to the petitioner. The management without taking note of the enquiry report, passed an order dated 15.03.2017 for recovery of Rs.9,91,006.22/-. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order of punishment, preferred the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.21160/2017. This Court vide

¶41

order dated 08.07.2021 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 15.03.2017 and remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to take the report of the Enquiry

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Officer dated 30.06.2015 to its logical end in the manner

¶45

known to law. It further ordered that the amount so recovered at the hands of the petitioner shall remain subject to the outcome of the order to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the proceedings that are remitted in these proceedings. The said exercise shall be completed by the Disciplinary Authority within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner submitted representation vide Annexure-X dated 16.12.2021. The respondent again passed the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 vide Annexure-Y. The petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-Y, filed this writ petition.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶47

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶49

the respondents initiated an enquiry against the petitioner.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. He submitted that the Disciplinary Authority without disagreeing with the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, had obtained a separate report behind the back of the petitioner and passed an order of punishment. He submits that the second alleged enquiry report is not binding on the petitioner and that the respondents have passed an order to recover the alleged amount from the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has challenged the said order in the earlier writ petition and this Court quashed the said order and directed the respondents to consider the enquiry report dated 30.06.2015 and pass an appropriate order. Further he submits that even after remand, the respondents did not consider the said enquiry report. Hence, he submits that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondents is not in terms of the order passed by this Court in the

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

W.P.No.21160/2017. Hence on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶56

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentCompany supported the impugned order, and submits that they have filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner has caused financial loss to the respondentCompany and the respondents have initiated an enquiry against the petitioner. Further he submits that the impugned order passed by the respondents is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶57

I have perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶58

There is no dispute that the petitioner is employed in the respondent-Company. The respondent submitted allegation against the petitioner that he has caused a loss of an amount of Rs.9,91,006.22/- to the respondent-Company. The respondent-Company initiated

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

an enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Vigilance Officer was directed to collect the information with regard to the petitioner. The Vigilance Officer has submitted a report. The Disciplinary Authority without considering the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, placing their reliance on the report submitted by the Vigilance Officer, has passed an order to recover the said amount from the petitioner on the ground that he has caused a financial loss to the respondent-Company. The petitioner had challenged order dated 15.03.2017, passed by the respondents without considering the report of Enquiry Officer dated 30.06.2015 in W.P.No.21160/2017. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 08.07.2021 quashed the order dated 15.03.2017, directing recovery of Rs.11,69,287/-. While

¶62

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

quashing the said order, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to take the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 30.06.2015 to its logical end in the manner known to law. After remand, the respondent-Company passed an order vide Annexure-Y. I have perused the impugned order vide Annexure-Y. The respondent-Company has not considered the report of the Enquiry Officer, dated 30.06.2015, to its logical end in the manner known to law. On the contrary, the respondent-Company has recorded a finding in Para No.11 of the impugned order that the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dated 30.06.2015 was already rejected by the then Managing Director. The said contention was not accepted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier writ petition and directed the respondent-Company to take the report dated 30.06.2015 into consideration and

¶65

pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The respondent-Company has again committed the same mistake in not considering the enquiry report dated

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

30.06.2015. The impugned order passed by the

¶69

respondent-Company is not in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21160/2017. The respondentCompany without considering the report dated 30.06.2015 passed an impugned order vide Annexure-Y. The impugned order passed by the respondent-Company is not in terms of the order passed by this Court. Hence on these grounds the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶70

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶71

pass the following order:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

a) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶74

b) The order vide Annexure-Y dated 10.02.2022 passed by the respondents, is hereby quashed.

¶75

c) The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass an appropriate order in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21160/2017 i.e., to take the

¶76

11 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:45498 WP No. 5351 of 2022

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

report of the Enquiry Officer dated 30.06.2015 to its logical end in the manner known to law within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶80

d) Pending IA's, if any, disposed of accordingly.

¶81

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶82

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri R Nanjundappa v. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Nanjundappa v. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt G Srimathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Lavanya K P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K M Hanumaiah Vs Sri K Dharanendraiah

Sri. Shivanand Vs Mysore Electrical Industries Limited

Dr. Debajyoti Mandal Vs Dr Ashutosh Raghuvanshi

Sri D M Puttarudrappa Vs Sri D K Nataraju