E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 03") DAY oF JUNE we
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 7
WRIT PETITION No.-'2;z771 orszoos I
B ETWEEN :
Shrir. Mudalagirigowda,
S/0 Thimmegowda,
Aged 55 years, __ i _
Working as Ju:iior}:joEngiriLeeri;
Karnataka I?oW'£;«rTra'i:;srI1'i.§--3jo'nV '
Corporation Lirilited, " 9 'T V
Ar~ka1godr'Ta1uE, _
Re3idir:g at_2."df»-*i.a--i11_,"'a " 'V _
2" Cross? Hem21vatb§"Npag.;§§f;
Arkalgod, " V _ "
HasS3n.,Distri'ct._»V ...PETITIONER
\' «. 'KHiriyafifiér;Advocate)
1. The'CE"{ief Engineer (E)
Kar::1ataI<a Power Transmission
'A CVo'rporation Limited,
a _ Works,
M}:sore.
5
Ex.)
2. The Superintendent Engineer
Karnataka Power Transrnission
Corporation Limited
{Major Woiiis), No. I 55 1,
C & D Block, Shivararn Road,-I A
Kuvempunagar, A.
Mysore - 570 023. V 7..,_ 0'
(By Shri. P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Atj;§ocatei.f.r Res_'p(>h*§ieht No.2,
Respondent No.1 Served)
This Writ Petition*–<isiffi1ed u;;tdei'–..rArtii'e1_es 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India prayi,rrg°t,o {;_ai'l.ii_'for'V_the records and
quash the order gassed hy"Respo–n§ie_n't .No:2v.v"dated 26.08.2004
Vide Annexure§=K'ao.' far as the ;3et'i«tio'n:er.. i_seonCei'ned and etc"
This ':Wi*i_£;"'Petiit'iot1 'i'sf.c.oiiiing for Hearing this day, the
court made th€Vf0iiQ:WViIigf" " 5'
"f0QRDER
A.-Heardidthe 'ievarnediieottnsei for the petitioner and the
— V, ,.,.,res’}§ohdents’;– _Thouigh”‘thie respondents have not filed Statement
r__’o’f_ih_the learned Counsel appearing for the
responde_ntsr’i3.Vhas canvassed legal eontentionst on which the
petition, ace(>r’dii1g to him, ought to be dismissed.
§
2;.)
2. The facts are as follows:
The petitioner while working alS’to_re,Keeper&in_Major
Works Divisional Stores at Hassan, Wa__si’~:.ept und–er”‘svt:spe’nsi~on’g
pending a departmental inc;uir”y,p:.”‘~..yg An. inqu’i.:fyj”_;\fl/asldv’initiated V
against him by the issttanee of dated 10.2000.
There were five charges that the
petitioner, whiley/torking’ had not taken
certain stocrkaito his service as a
Store I§e_epVer’;~.hfe copper wire by removing
a large:Quantity’T’a;n.at1thorl_s’evdly. f The third charge was that he
had shiftedlntaterialsroflthei’Corporation in a lorry along with
two eautsidersx, t-herehy exposing the property of the Corporation
alto’ “losses; Fourthlygmit was alleged that he had remained
ahzsent from duty without handing over Charge
of the Stores; ll Finally, it was alleged that on account of his
V’-».unautht>vr}sed absence, there was a shortage of material which he
Vlltad not accounted for.
5
There was an order for j.*:)’l’I”it–..l1’tql1i1’y4l’2t§;3itlsvf._:’p.tllL7{
petitioner and one R.Antappa, £1 d1’i\}er, 7._who iw-as’ .i.ri\.n<)l'a?_etl._iiinp
the acts alleged against the._petitioner, ._An, was* '
Conducted by a retired District The officer on a
detailed examination of 'record, held that the
allegations were not proy.ed:.._ Igficgnd respondent
issued 3. seeking to differ
with the and proposing to impose
punish;nelnt.'' * ldnlllyivlreplied to the show–cause
notice. thereafter in Variance with the
inquiry oft:icer's finvdingsfiissed a final order holding that the
charges: were proVed_..a.nd imposed a. punishment of recovery of
'Rs.'8.3,2vl_8;iI'7_liiimonthly instalments and directed withholding
"twoV'8Qn'nu'éi:lV' increments with eurnnlative effect. The
petl"t-toner'ehtillenged the same by way of an appeal and the
lflapppeal id-sit) having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this
i' ' — "_eonrt';_«
3
The learned counsel for the petitioner r*e*ite:=21ti:’ig7
the above would submit that RegLIlati()n_.2%%.
Power Transmission Corp0rati~:>n Empletyees 1{fCEa.sisific2i;tie’n,
Discipline, Centrol and Appealjii”RLegulatieiisi i’l§.E§7 pan’
mcztericz with Regul2itiefr~~3f(2)_«”def Bank
Officer Employees’ (Discihiiinyeiiaiid:’iAp;efe:fi1}f.heguiatiens 1977,
which Came in; i.Thf§§f’3ihdg€ Bench of the
Supreme and others vs. Kunj
Belzari i “and’insefar as the disciplinary
auth01*ity_ notice seeking to differ
from the iii:-quii:fy ieffie5:fr”sifinding and to impose punishment
and.~§;thei” disciipii–nary__’authority not having indicated the
he sought to differ with the inquiry officer,
iii’was–_helid «ti{;_v.he~ii,;i§”yi0lati0n of the said Regulations and the apex
Cofirt ha..d.h’ei’d that the proceedings stood vitiated on account of
_i’thelt_sam’e.i it is based on the said judgment that the learned
if €’_e>ti’iE’siel fer the petitioner would seek that the present petition be
__a_llewedi
5
49 The learned counsei for the respondentsegg’;ttljdsuhirnitli V’
that the sequence of events and theTiroi’e’ofl.the«netitioner’
found by the inquiry officer and eVirie_nt’;from Arn.2:i’er1:-:iil’–on’~.
record would clearly justify thev..i.r”e1as(>ning._ofwthe dlseiplinary V
authority and the punishment inzposefl ‘Ville woilultl-Afurfher point
out that Regulation 2A drsC¥.plinary authority
to assign or to i1iidi.e’at§:a,;h{§\i. C14 he sought to
differ from Therefore, it is a
techniCel_it_y to rely to contend that
the proleeediniggslisijoodVvitivzited, In this regard, he would seek to
place the Supreme Court in the case of
P.D’.;;lgrayi=aZ if v.22″, Sfdte of Inclia, (2006)8 SCC 776, which
incidentally ‘rendered by a Two Judge Bench of the
pointedly referred to Punjab Narionai Bank
o2zri5Z.a_r)rf2er*,s1l_ which is sought to be relied upon by the
“-..petitioner}- and 21 View has been expressed to the following
i’ ‘ — ieffeetf
5
“[)eei5;7z;i2 of £125.: Céféfi? 3:2 §I1i.Kczg2(2();’ v, J’€I§,_?i’?3{,?’/’_?,.{ §’i’f.
wize;*ez:pe:>:z Mi:Ra0 pfcaeed .siz’:):2g re:’i.:mee {(2 e{2:/zZ_e.§_7zf ‘2i52a:;_’rV” ‘
220;:-0b5;ervzsi?ee (ff prz’z:ei;)Ie Qfmzzzgrczf j£«z.$*2’z’ee ;}t<;e2f;'3ecszezgeks'
g);/ejucfiee 0:’ the same sfzmizf F205 -fxzéwziczcjf “-‘as’ iv: “::;.:z;s-e§«;v
55517 Vie’; 5}’ {<'f!'?"€if€eI:iz'c'e", e51nze2()Z ize fifééicf; '21; .,/Jesze cIi3eDfé<;e':z'ib§e'i2¢: 'e..
the 512315112! ease. The {)!"fI?r€'2_;[)[€?,S' Q,'- zezcsfseszztf .Tii£–}Jifeef, as' '
;20z'ieed l2e1'ez'n13ef0re, have ££f7§tl€37§fg()?'?€' (2 sec: -ehizgzgex '
\~'f(%W of {he az'eei.<;i0n.s' off ffzis C(3gi?'z..fg2 S2_fczfe Bz:i:ir_Qf'Pc1l§aEc:
V. S.K.Slzarmifip!{i’i12cz’m;’,_7?ze’_ Cgizizfi has sizzfted
from its ;:3ariE 2: ‘eazze-e;7z’§ I/iizz efiene as ‘.’sm4z!-I violation S/tall
re_s’uZt;’in VI_:12(‘.”:’}!1″Z_(?l’ hez’.{zg”~.ifei2cIe:ied__c2 nullizfy T0 the
‘1
pz’iz2c*i;)z’e/d};>e;e
{He (,3/’*7 éiaidi ‘ Vezlteréun partem, a clear
::Zi.9IiI2ee”tiez’§» has 7f?een_ lag! down between the cases where
I;{zez’e wczs no f2zgzziirzg’cgz “ct-7__Z cznd the ease..s’ where there was
mere i’eci1ze2’i::VaZA ‘ !I2:2;,”_r’iIV2ig.e1e’7’ezc).z:=Z’ Qf the prineipie. The C(}LlI’l
czppZZe:2_Vz’l1e ;2ri31c’iApfeLs”0;’ zzcznzrczl jusIi«:’e lzaving regara’ 20
‘ ficefcwz .9i’iz:gzt’fez2 abuzczizzing in eczch ease. It is not czppiiegi
‘ Eire: V{{CL££ti’}’?. wifizbiif re ‘ereizce {0 Ike reZevc.:I2Z_fL<1c'f5 am!
L".T£Ti'<'i'l4§i?'l,§'feZ'i?€63' afzize came. it is no unmiy izorse. It e::mm)z
be' ji:–u_f izékz…:Zn:zizf,Eczg::'!<eifbrzmsia. {See Vive/ca Nana' Selizi vs.
zAV}E?_§?i'(%}WC£.S'Ii?f. See aiso A/I(2f2cf.S(z;"Icz;' us'. Szazfe off U.P,;
C.§;:zf§'2:e§;2iV; J & K Bczzzk Limited. And State of UP; vs.
3}
5
Therefore, the iearned counsel wouid_..suhfinVit=.that not ‘
every infraction eoiiid be heid to vitviiate the. p’i’r)e:ee<i_i13g:evv and it
would depend on the facts and eireu1'n_st'ances ofj_ieaeh'~ea'se','<to'–..
address whether there is prejridieev-ieaused..to=_aj"_dei:indiient in
holding that a pai'tic:i.i.ia1' woiiild'-A viitiate the
proceedings. In the instant the petitioner had
been furnished a he was placed on
notice of intention to vary with the
finding_.o.f. had been granted an
opporti1.nity -clearly indicate that there was no
serious the petitioner even if the
disciplinary authority had failed to indicate the reasoning on
heiihtje'nded to differ with the inquiry offiC.er's report and
ii"'he'nee; would submit that the law laid down in
Przrzjrzb _]'v'rIrE§;sziaZ Bcmic and orlzers would have to be read in
Hecinjuiietiéin with the reasoning and the opinion expressed in the
ii'iii_Aia£§§riij.tidgi'I1€11E in R[).AgrczwczE.
3
9
5. In the above facts and eiietirnstanczes, ‘i«ttis'(>.’i:2’iEf. ‘
question whether the pro<:eedings stnotl~-y.itia€_e<i oin"a';:eon..ti't of
the disciplinary authority not having i«ndi:::at'ed the_vi*e.asQni§ig._on..
which he sought to differ xi/iith'~»..t_he opiiiiongiicif iritiuiry "
officer in the show–cau_se notice _i'ssned_ to the..,P@t'iti(iner is
concerned, the answer is' hearing that was
proposed under the sh:e'w';c?i:t1s§. with pointed
reference to_ u i 'disciplinary authority
sought If that was not made
l<flOW1"1igi0 ipie'i:iVtilVoiii1er,'<the….hearing that was afforded to him
was notiiwitil; referenee reasoning of the disciplinary
auth<:;rit:;_anci '-thereiforet. the petitioner was definitely at a
i"disaElvani.age'~in making out a ease as to how the reasoning of
"-the«.iinqLii.ryf«offieer' ought to be sustained. Hence, the absence of
an express .re*qui1'ement under Regulation 2A is immaterial.
ii 'vaf3parentl}.t also the reasoning of the apex Court in
i' ho?-eiiiiig that such reasoning ought to be disclosed in the show»
_e_;:§use notice issued while eonsideririg the effect of non-
3
10
compliance in that regard with reference to Reg:–;’latio.n:
is
the Punjab National Bank Officer Einipioyeeslitiljisieiplinejgarid
Appeal) Regulations 1977. Therefore, it::.earinot”he’
absence of the reasoning in tlie”‘show~e’ause. not.iee«V.__’would not-i
prejudice the petitioner and petit’ion._AtoV_that extent
would succeed. Insofarfiasp whether the joint
inquiry was preceded by:.arr* is a question of
fact. The would submit that
this was 3 tiorrrnailifty §$;;usai;e:1§isoCr::s1nu be} normally complied in the
usual course’ ~tfie..bg-nefit of the record, he is not in a
position an order has been passed. In
any event, this’-quesition could be left open in the light of the
court while allowing this writ petition and setting
order would direct that the matter he
rerni.tted_vto theidiseiplinary authority in order that a fresh show-
“eause notice be issued, indicating the reasoning on which the
disciplinary authority seeks to differ with the inquiry officer
2 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner may
5
pass fresh orders in accardance with {aw
Vxfhfithfii’ there was; an order, preceding
was ccsnducted, is left open.
1 _
Hence,
the j<)if1fiin:;'uir:y Vthzii: V'