IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.2103 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RO-BG) & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY ITI LTD., DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 016 REP. BY K.V. SURESH 2. CHIEF MANAGER (HR) (M) & APPELLATE AUTHORITY ITI LTD., DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 016 REP. BY UDAY KUMAR (BY SRI S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI N. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O R. NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.97/16, I MAIN ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE – 560 020.
... APPELLANTS ... RESPONDENT (SRI N. KRISHNAMURTHY, PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2017 PASSED IN W.P.NO.36691/2010 (S-RES) ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE COURT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE INCLUDING COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ABOVE APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard Shri S.G. Hegde, learned advocate for the appellants and Shri N. Krishnamurthy, party-in-person – respondent.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.
3. Petitioner was working as a Deputy General Manager with respondent Company. He was placed under suspension on 22.04.2003 and a charge sheet was issued on 25.04.2003 alleging that a letter was sent by one Mrs. Suma, wherein it was alleged that one Mr. Mishra, Manager–CCO visits ladies hostel of full-term apprentices working under CCO, teases them and follows them on the streets and invites them to accompany him to films and bars.
4. Disciplinary Authority resolved to conduct a domestic enquiry against the charge sheeted officer and appointed one Sri D.K. Anjaneya as an Enquiry Officer and a full fledged enquiry was conducted. The principle charge against the employee is that the letter which was written in the name of Mrs. Suma was written by the charge sheeted officer. The management witnesses namely MW.6 and MW.7, whose evidence was relied upon by the management to drive home the guilt of the charge sheeted officer, deposed that they were not aware about the incident. However, after conclusion of domestic enquiry, the enquiry committee held charge sheeted officer guilty of acts mentioned in the charge sheet.
5. Based on the enquiry report, an order was passed imposing punishment of reducing him to a lower grade i.e., from Grade-IV to Grade-III in exercise of power under Rule 25(e) of the CDA Rules, 1925. Feeling aggrieved, the charge sheeted officer challenged the same in appeal under Rule 33 (appeals) of CDA Rules and it was dismissed. The said order passed by the Appellate Authority was challenged before the Hon’ble Single Judge.
6. The Hon’ble Single Judge, on consideration of the material on record, has held that the Enquiry Officer has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner was made a victim of situation. He has further recorded that management had placed reliance on witnesses namely MWs.6 to 9 and they had disowned their signatures found on the disputed documents. Having thus recorded, the Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition quashing the order of punishment and held that the employee would be entitled to all consequential benefits. Hence this appeal by the management.
7. Shri S.G. Hegde, learned advocate for the management arguing in support of the appeal, contended that the Hon’ble Single Judge without examining the report in its totality, relying only upon the evidence of MW.6 to MW.9 has erroneously allowed the writ petition. He strenuously contended that the Disciplinary Authority has taken note of the report of the handwriting expert, wherein it has opined that the alleged letter was written by the charge sheeted officer.
8. Shri N. Krishnamurthy, party-in-person - employee argued opposing this appeal.
9. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
10. On consideration of the material on record, the Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded that the material witnesses MW.6 to MW.9 disowned their signatures on the documents. Hence, opinion of the handwriting expert, Dr.
P. Chandrashekaran remains for consideration. The penultimate paragraph of the enquiry committee report clearly indicates that the presenting officer did not present Dr. P. Chandrashekaran. However, the committee has considered the contents of the letter to arrive at its conclusion.
11. Thus, the enquiry committee has held the charge as proved based on such opinion without examining Dr.P. Chandrashekaran. Therefore, the two aspects namely evidence of MW.6 to MW.9 and opinion of Dr. P. Chandrashekaran, who has not been examined, go in favour of the charge sheeted officer.
12. In the circumstances, we see no ground to interfere in this appeal. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE ca