The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs Sri H B Dastagir

SRI. H.B. DASTAGIR S/O. SHEIK BUDEN SAB AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL) KPTCL 2^ND CROSS, CM EXTENSION KYATHASANDRA TUMKUR – 517 204.

¶29

…RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI. N BYREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

¶32

HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 51254/2017 (S-R) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB WA No. 1716 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

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

¶40

The present intra-Court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.51254/2017.

¶41

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶42

The Disciplinary Authority issued charge sheet dated 20.11.2001 to the petitioner for two article of charges, which would read as under:

¶43

“(I)T hat the DO has received 6000 meter no. 2 ACSR Conductor from Tumkur Store during his incumbency of Store Officer of Gubbi Sub-Division and failed to account the same in the store ledger of Gubbi Store for having received the material under Invoice no. 6442 dated 21-1-1997 and he is responsible for misuse of the materials so drawn and thus, there is a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.61,770 to the corporation.

¶44

(II) The another charge against the-DO is regarding creation of false documents. It is alleged that the DO has admitted that he has taken 6000 meter of

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB WA No. 1716 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

ACSR conductor in lorry no. CAA 6520 to Gubbi sub-division (Lingadevaru Lorry Driver) and has stated that AEE, Gubbi sub-division has acknowledged the receipt of the said conductor. But, actually this conductor has not reached Gubbi sub-division and there is no entry in the numerical ledger and there is no signature of Sri. Lingadevaru Lorry Driver on the invoice. Therefore, it is alleged that the DO while working as AEE in Gubbi subdivision, has received the conductor through invoice no. 6442 dated 21-1-1997 after signing the Register has taken the said conductor through the Tipatur sub-division lorry no. CAA 6520, but the receipt given by the DO is not proper receipt since it does not bear any voucher number and this material was not taken at all to Gubbi Store account. Therefore, it is alleged that the DO has created a false document and has misappropriated the said materials."

¶49

The Enquiry Officer, who was appointed to enquire into the article of charges, submitted the enquiry report, recording a finding that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges. However, the Enquiry Officer opined that the petitioner was negligent while performing his duty. The alleged negligence in performing the duty was not one of the charges, for which the disciplinary inquiry was

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB WA No. 1716 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

conducted against him. After submission of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a final show cause notice dated 07.04.2003 to the petitioner and after considering his reply, passed an order on 18.11.2003 directing recovery of Rs.61,770/- from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority i.e., the Director (Transmission), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.03.2017.

¶53

The petitioner challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority, and the Appellate Authority in the W.P No.51254/2017 before this Court.

¶54

It is not in dispute that the Disciplinary Authority did not communicate the points of disagreement on findings of the Enquiry Officer on two charges to the petitioner, and no show cause notice was issued to him calling for his reply to the points of disagreement. The petitioner was not made aware of the points of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority. Without following the due

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB WA No. 1716 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

procedure, the final show cause notice dated 07.04.2003 was issued to the petitioner proposing to impose the penalty for recovery of Rs.61,770/-.

¶58

The learned Single Judge considering this infraction of the procedure prescribed in imposing penalty on the petitioner, held that the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority was in violation of Regulation 11(A)(2) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for short ‘Regulations, 1987’). Therefore, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate Authority as the orders were passed in violation of the Regulations, 1987.

¶59

We have considered the Regulations as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find that the impugned order requires an interference by this Court and therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

¶60