Sri. Bheemanna Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

SRI. BHEEMANNA S/O LATE C B NAGALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) (NON-GRADUATE) 220KV RECEIVING STATION, KPTCL RAICHUR AND R/AT SOMAGUDDI ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISRICT (NOW POSTED TO MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL, RAICHUR). (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

THE DIRECTOR (ADM & HRD) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶17

CAUVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BANGALORE RURAL CIRCLE, 3^RD FLOOR, CRESCENT TOWERS, CRESCENT ROAD, MADHAVANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADV. FOR R1 & R2)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASH-(I) ORDER DATED 09.06.2015 PASSED BY R-3 AT ANNEX-G; (II) ORDER DATED 12.07.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEX-H; AS THE SAME ARE VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BESIDES IN VIOLATION OF THE PRL. OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) of respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short “KPTCL”) who has retired as on this date, is before this Court under Article 226

¶26

of the Constitution of India, questioning the order bearing No.SEE(BDC)/DCA/SAA/2015-16/1503-08 dated

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶29

09.06.2015 (Annexure-G) by which, the petitioner is imposed punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect and warning. The petitioner has also questioned Annexure-H order bearing No.KPTCL/B57/5094/2014-15 dated 12.06.2016 reverting him to the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical).

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that:

¶31

While the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer, a charge memo dated 15.06.2013 (AnnexureC) was issued to the petitioner under Regulation 12 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeals) Regulations, 1987 (for short “1987 Regulations”) for imposing minor punishment, calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply. On submission of reply, respondent No.3 under order dated 02.07.2013 (Annexure-D) imposed punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Thereafter, the cases of Assistant Engineers who are eligible between

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶34

01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 were taken up for promotion in DPC held on 20.07.2013. In terms of the DPC held on 26.07.2013, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) by order dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure-E). Thereafter, on 28.02.2015 (Annexure-F), the petitioner was issued with one more charge memo under Regulation 12 of 1987 Regulations alleging certain misconduct and calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply for imposing minor punishment. On consideration of petitioner’s reply, the 3^rd respondent under Order dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure-G) imposed punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner along with warning. Soon thereafter, the second respondent, under order dated 12.06.2016 (Annexure-H) withdrew the promotion granted to the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) under order dated 19.09.2013 and posted him to work as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Questioning the order of penalty dated 09.06.2015 as well as withdrawing his

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶37

promotion under order dated 12.07.2016, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶38

Heard learned counsel Sri.Subramanya Bhat for petitioner and learned counsel Smt.Nayana Tara B.G. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers including affidavits filed by the petitioner as well as the respondents.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who was working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) under order dated 19.09.2013. It is submitted that insofar as Assistant Executive Engineer is concerned, in terms of Schedule-VI(A) of 1987 Regulations, the Appointing Authority is the second respondent-Director (A & HR) and the authority empowered to impose penalty is Chief Engineer (Electrical) insofar as minor punishment is concerned and the Appellate Authority is the Director (Transmission). It is his submission that when the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶42

(Electrical), under order dated 09.06.2015, the 3^rd respondent-Superintendent Engineer could not have imposed the punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect. Learned counsel would submit that as the 3^rd respondent is neither Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority insofar as Assistant Executive Engineers are concerned, the punishment imposed under order dated 09.06.2015 is one without jurisdiction.

¶43

Insofar as Annexure-H dated 12.07.2016 withdrawing promotion from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion during the currency of punishment of withholding one increment under order dated 02.07.2013 and on expiry of one year i.e., from 02.07.2014, the petitioner was eligible for consideration of his case for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. It is his submission that if the petitioner was not entitled for promotion as on 19.09.2013, however, he

¶44

7 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶46

would be eligible for promotion from 02.07.2014 and the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered for promotion from 02.07.2014 onwards. The respondents could not have withdrawn the promotion of the petitioner, at the most the promotion of the petitioner could get postponed to July 2014. Thus, learned counsel Sri.Subramanya Bhat would submit that the second respondent could not have withdrawn the promotion of the petitioner from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and he submits that the second respondent ought to have given effect to the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer subsequent to 02.07.2014. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Nayana Tara for respondents would submit that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer under order dated 19.09.2013 since the petitioner was suffering penalty imposed under order dated

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶49

02.07.2013. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that respondent No.2 rightly withdrew the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer under order dated 12.07.2016. It is her submission that during the currency of the punishment, no employee of the Board would be entitled for consideration of their case for promotion.

¶50

With regard to the order of penalty dated 09.06.2015, it is submitted that taking note of the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo dated 28.02.2015, following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 12 of 1987 Regulations imposed the punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect which according to the learned counsel is proper and correct. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the following points would arise for consideration:

¶52

9 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶54

(1) Whether the order of penalty dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure-G) withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect is legally sustainable?

¶55

(2) Whether withdrawal of promotion of the petitioner under order dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure-H) is proper and correct.

¶56

Answer to the above points would be in the negative for the following reasons:

¶57

The petitioner who was working as Assistant Engineer suffered penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect under order dated 02.07.2013. The said penalty order was in currency till July 2014. During the said period, the DPC for promotion to the next higher cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer considered the case of the petitioner also in its meeting held on 20.07.2013 and accordingly, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer under order dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure-E). Subsequently, another charge memo dated 28.02.2015 was issued under Regulation 12 of 1987 Regulations which resulted in imposing penalty of

¶58

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶59

withholding one increment with cumulative effect under order 09.06.2015. The penalty order is by 3^rd respondentSuperintending Engineer. When the petitioner is promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), the Appointing Authority and Authority empowered to impose minor penalty is the Director (A & HR) and Chief Engineer (Electrical) respectively. But the order of penalty is by the 3^rd respondent-Superintendent Engineer. As such, the 3^rd respondent-Superintendent Engineer had no competency over the petitioner to impose punishment. Therefore, on the ground of competency the impugned order of penalty dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure-G) requires interference at the hands of this Court.

¶60

Insofar as Annexure-H order dated 12.07.2016, which withdraws promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) on the ground that the petitioner was promoted during the currency of the penalty requires interference. But the said order is to be treated as postponing his promotion till completion of

¶61

11 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶63

the period of penalty imposed under order dated 02.07.2013. Admittedly, the DPC meeting held on 20.07.2013, found the petitioner fully qualified and eligible for promotion and accordingly cleared his case and promoted the petitioner to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) by order dated 19.09.2013. The only reason for withdrawing promotion under order 12.07.2016 is that as on the date of promoting the petitioner, penalty of withholding one annual increment was in currency. Penalty period in terms of order dated 02.07.2013 would come to an end by 01.07.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner would be entitled for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. The fact that the petitioner was found otherwise eligible for promotion, but for currency of penalty, withdrawal of promotion by order dated 12.07.2016 shall be treated as postponement of the date of promotion of the petitioner to 01.07.2014. Though the petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer from 19.09.2013 onwards, he would be entitled for the

¶64

12 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:5700 WP No. 62167 of 2016

¶66

pay of Assistant Executive Engineer only from 02.07.2014 onwards.

¶67

For the reasons recorded above, the following order: (a) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order bearing No.SEE(BDC)/DCA/SAA/2015-16/1503-08 dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure-G) is quashed.

¶68

(b)The order dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure-H) bearing No.KPTCL/B57/5094/2014-15 is also quashed with a further direction to treat the petitioner’s promotion under order dated 19.09.2013 w.e.f. 02.07.2014.

¶69

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶70

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri. Bheemanna v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Bheemanna v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

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 Boresha B Vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

Sri Mahesha C K Vs Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat

Sri P Sudarshan Vs the Commissioner

Sunil Choudhary Vs Department of Commercial Taxes

M/S S P Traders Vs Union of India

M/S P K S Infra Solutions Vs Union of India