IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL No.5027 OF 2012 (S-R) CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL No.2109 OF 2013(S-R) IN W.A. No.5027 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED KARGAL-577 204.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED GERUSOPPA-577 204.
….APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI D RAJU SON OF LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS HELPER KPCL COLONY, B R PROJECT BHADRAVATHI-577 202.
(BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE) ….RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 43768 OF 2002 DATED 11.07.2012.
IN W.A. No.2109 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
D.RAJU SON OF LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YRS, WORKING AS HELPER, KPCL COLONY B.R. PROJECT, BHADRAVATHI-577 301. (SR. CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ….APPELLANT (BY SRI. V S NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU, BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR-560 001.
2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KPCL, KARGAL-577 421.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY KPCL, GERUSOPPA-577 331.
(BY SRI. B ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE) ….RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.43768 OF 2002(S-R) DATED 11.07.2012.
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2012 passed in W.P.No.43768 of 2002 has filed W.A.No.2109 of 2013 and the respondents have filed W.A.No.5027 of 2012.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred to in the writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner joined respondent No.1-Corporation in the year 1977 and continued to work in the Corporation. In the year 1999, the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry and he was issued with a charge sheet dated 06.04.1999. The petitioner gave an explanation denying the charges. Thereafter, not considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the respondent ordered for an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 22.05.2000 holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show- cause notice calling upon the petitioner to give an explanation to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner gave explanation to the show-cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority after examining the report of the Enquiry Officer and also explanation submitted by the petitioner passed an order on 26.08.2000 imposing major punishment reducing the basic pay of the petitioner from Rs.7,585/- to the minimum of the pay scale i.e., Rs.3,510/-, i.e., almost by six stages.
3. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority submitted his explanation to respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2 confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 09.11.2000. That as per the standing orders, the petitioner preferred an appeal to respondent No.3. The said appeal came to be dismissed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of punishment filed W.P.No.36550 of 2001, which came to be disposed of on 20.03.2002 directing the respondent to consider the same. Thereafter, on 05.08.2002 respondent No.1 passed an order upholding the order of punishment passed by respondent No.2.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents filed W.P.No.43768 of 2002. The learned single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition and confirmed the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority as well Appellate Authority. Further, it is ordered that petitioner is entitled for restoration of 3 increments in addition to the 20 already restored. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed W.A.No.2109 of 2013 and respondents have filed W.A.No.5027 of 2012.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. From perusal of the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, the charges leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Further, Enquiry Officer after holding an enquiry has observed in the report that, “I am of the opinion that all the allegations made in the charge memo issued to the delinquent dated 06.04.1999 are proved beyond any reasonable by playing any evidence before the enquiry to disprove the charges framed against him. Instead of appearing before the enquiry and placing sufficient materials he had made it a habit to writ letter often and often for some reasons or the other. Several letters written by the delinquent are also enclosed to this file. There are no reason to justify his absence before the enquiry. To conclude, that the charges framed against the delinquent are very serious in nature and various charges framed against the delinquent are proved and also delinquent has committed the act of misconduct as per the Certified Standing Order 017/22(h) and also Class 22(i). All the papers submitted before the enquiry documents marked as exhibits”.
7. The Disciplinary Authority based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved and he is guilty of the misconduct. That the petitioner unauthorisidly unlawfully kept the teakwood and rose wood pieces as per the investigation by the Forest and Police officials in the said house and unlawful stock of wood and carpenting instruments have been seized is also some other misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority after considering the entire material on record confirmed the order of punishment withholding 26 increments and out of them 20 increments are restored.
8. The learned single Judge after considering the entire material on record and having regard to the totality of circumstances, modified the penalty imposed. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE MBS