High Court Karnataka High Court

S Chandrashekaraiah vs Karnataka Power Transmission … on 3 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
S Chandrashekaraiah vs Karnataka Power Transmission … on 3 August, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
 x 'T {Eariicr Known as KEB)

3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARM-'=;TAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 339 DAY OF AUGUST 2009

BEFORE:

E'. Ei0N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND  1 
WRIT PETITION Nu.31949;2o03(s4R£ s;   _ é ' ~ 

BETWEEN:

I

S Chandrzashckaraiah,  .

S10 Late S Sadashivaiah,

Agcd about 60 Years,  _  "_
Accounts Oficer (Rétired) , .  "  
Kamaiaka Puvmr Trafisniissiirn'     --

Cprp.Ura.i;ii5i:. '' ' ~~ _ ' 5
Residing at 
8th Niain, 5th cross, 

, RFC L;iy9ut,~ 
; imanagarak «  %%%%% -A «
 3éziig;a1¢2:§--560 O40.

 PETITIONER

  Kalhavig Advuaaic)
  

 Power Transzmissiun Curpumiiun Limflcd

" -- .. Cauvery Bhavan

Bangalurw-560 009.
8:; Its General Manager (A. & Hkfl)



2 The Bircutur (Finance) And Appellate

Authority

KPTCT.

Cauvery Blxavan

Bangalore 9

3 The General Manages: (A8;   A f}  1    

(Earlier The Chief Financial Adv§«sct--._ ' "

And the Disciplinary Autlmrity) 2 V'

Karnataka Power Ttansmissigfiq

Curpuration Limited, 

Cauveffi' Bhavan, V    "     
Bangalure-S60   _       RESPONDENTS

(By Sfi.B.C;”P?:abltai§é:r,’ tfittlilbfiattfi ism: 3; R2 )

g owns-nt£’4« ‘ ..

‘~£Ei_l¢:tl1V*”under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitutien” pf _India ‘..p’:’ayi’ng to Quash the Order Bearing
Nc.B2l:’B22f73?;’97–98, * Dt-3–7-2002 Vida Annexurt: F by

_Ho1t_rlii;2g 1 thg sékm. _____ illegal, Arbitrary, Unsustainable,
Un;e&sofi:£hl¢,’~.Capricious, opposed tea the Principles uf Natural
Justina, A.Regulatiens cf 1937 and violative of Article 14

M: i;x’i_c;.Cmi’:;tituti<2£i of India and Quash the Order I)t.26-5-2000
Vials An:3ext:f£:.i) by fielding That The Same as illegal, Arbitrary,

. Unjust, Unsmétainablc, Unreasunabla; Capriciuus, uppusad to the

"-Principles oflfiatural Justice and CDC & A Regulations 1987 and

' igVi;}§a:tive'luf Articlta 14 of the Cunstitutitm and Direct the

j "R<::sm:':dent Corporaiien to Refund the Amount Collected!

Rctaincad in Pursuanue of the: Order Dt.3-7-2002 Vida:
.ArineXare.F.

5

3
This ‘Writ Pcliiion cuming on far htsaring Lhis day, the Cuurl
made the following: –

OEQE R

Heard [hm Cuunscl for the pciitioncr and the r6.5i4.V..3′}:i{§-‘§.%Ijfi§3r:’.,

The rcspondcnis have not chaser: to Vb

objections. However, the wunscl fi:}5Sf:3′(_.}’I}’d<;.:'Ifi§E.i..h__";';r'ij:i!§'(1

vchmncznliy oppose the peiiliun viii t'=(.V3'I}tss'25};'1££A.V§}IvI"!Il€3l':"i'.E3'v.'

2;; Thdilig-.13 i}3;.ii"..l:'I€ pcfiiliancr had entered the services
of the rt:s:';g_3t1:1cziiV.:~ 'Karfi£:;£a}(a"'.Powcr Trdnsmisséun Corpumlion

Limiymi; whicix 1~:_gS':§ari§(:r knuwn as Kamalaka Elccuiuily Board,

'V :35 in lht: year 1959. The pciitiuncr miircd from

{h_e":s§:r1?Vit:t§sv. pf ~ fiié respondent – Corpuratiun as an Accuums

V –V ve5s?:i&Vl'f15':"::fiZ:¢.;i from 29-4.2000. He: was served with a charge-

.s§;::t:£..;:3 5.5.1998 when he was working as Accounts Qfficcr »

' The charge: was that the pciilicncr whils working as an

" Qxccuunls Gfliccrr in the offlcc :3? the Superintendent of Palicc,

Vigiianeztz , had aficgsdly wzitien a italic? with fake office dispatch

5

4
number with forged signaiuzfcz of the Supmizzitzndcnl Police —-

Vigilance, iniimafing {hat the back-biiiing charges of Rs.92,272r’–

pmfurmd in respect of a particular meter “~s;t

Kammagondanahaiii, Bangalore was 1viLhdra\vn.V;;i§’ci::

alleged act amuunicd lo grave misc:(y:1’1du§ lT’

have: led to loss to the extent of.R$_T92,2′?2!}’4′; ” ,

Curpuraiiun had aiso issued a fa)’ aiiiiéiixcfgcmployec,
by namts Vcnkalcsh, V S§1ii9r’«._ C-3 Sub–Divisiun?

Ixarn’ On the basis of the said
allcgafirafi {he zzziflcd upon to sht1w-cause as to why

suiiabin disc4§.’§ii1é_::iaI3*.7’ac{iuz§”‘s might not in be iakcn- H6 had

. hi”s~. chargts. The discipiinaxy aaihoriiy

V-A ta hold an enquiry under Rcguialiuns II and

l1A “:z:f fink: (Classificaliun, Discipiing Cunlmi and Appcai)

H 1987 (hercinafler :£”::fara*<:d L0 as the 'I937

.1 /,5?-égtxizjtiitrlléz', for brevity). Latest, by an order? the: Corporation

" Wafapuinied a attired Diskricl and Sessions Judge Lu» huid an enquiry.

The said enquiry offit:-er did hold an enquiry, which according in

5

If)

such rtziiremcni benefits thai he would be eaiiilcd lg
The: respondents are diremcd In f6fuI.IdjA,,§1’_!§} a:;2′:5ufi{:; .1
petitioner is entitled in accordance
weeks, if not cariier, Bum [}I€ £L:f;fil’§[%$V_Ui’

urdar.

11?