IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.35720 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
MR. MALAPPA SIDDAPPA BAGEWADI S/O SIDDAPPA BADEWADI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT 1ST MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 …PETITIONER (BY SHRI. H. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE-577 002 ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.10.2018 VIDE ANNX-E AND REJOIN THE PETITIONER TO THE SERVICE OF BESCOM.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri H.Sunil Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lineman in Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (‘BESCOM’ for short), based on the National Trade Certificate issued by the Department of Employment and Training. By order dated 25.09.2018(Annexure-D), BESCOM has removed petitioner from service on the ground that certificate submitted by him was a fake one.
3. Shri Sunil Kumar submitted that respondents have not held any enquiry to prove that the certificate is a fake one. Therefore, impugned order is bad in law.
4. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the records.
5. Annexure-D is the order impugned by the petitioner. It is recorded therein that Commissioner for Industrial Training & Employment by communication dated 17.05.2018 has conveyed that marks card submitted by the petitioner is not genuine.
6. It is not in dispute that ITI certificate is required to be issued by the Department of Employment and Training. The highest authority of that Department namely, the Commissioner has conveyed to petitioner’s employer that marks card submitted by the petitioner is not a genuine one. The ground urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner that no enquiry has been conducted before removing the petitioner from service is untenable inasmuch as the marks card issuing authority has declared it as a fake one. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE