IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.3842 OF 2016 (S-TR) BETWEEN:
1. RAMESH K. P.
SENIOR PLANT MANAGER HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VILLAGE BALA, VIA KATIPALLIA MANGALURU-574149 DAKSHINA KARNATAKA.
2. MOHAMMAD FAIZAN HEAD HR - SCZ RETAIL PARISHRAM BHAWAN 7TH FLOOR, OPP. BABUKHAN ESTATE BUILDING FATCH MAIDAN ROAD BASHEER BAGH HYDERABAD TELAGANA-500004.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C K SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. FRANCIS D' SOUZA AGED 52 YEARS SON OF ROSARIO D' SOUZA SENIOR ACCOUNTS/ ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED MANGALORE, LPG BOTTLING PLANT RESIDING OF 2/65 MUCHIKERE ROAD KULAIGU, KULAI MANGALURU-575019.
2. C. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN DEPUTY MANAGER HR NABGAKIRE LPG IMPORT FACILITATORS HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE RETAIL VILLAGE BALA, VIA KATIPALLIA MANGALURU-574149 DAKSHINA KARNATAKA.
3. HR HEAD MARKETING HPCL PETROLEUM HOUSE 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD MUMBAI-400020.
4. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001.
... RESPONDENTS (UNION OF INDIA- SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.45726 OF 2015 DATED 16.08.2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.45726 of 2015, Respondents No.1 and 3 in the writ petition are before this Court in this appeal.
2. The petitioner challenged the order of transfer dated 28.09.2015, by which, he was transferred from Mangaluru to Ramagundam in the State of Telangana. The petitioner was working as Senior Accounts Assistant at Mangaluru for about 17 years. The petitioner contended that the transfer has been effected in violation of transfer guidelines and further contended that he would suffer hardship as his children are studying in 12th and 10th standards respectively. The petitioner made representations dated 09.10.2015 and 11.10.2015 stating that his children are studying at 12th and 10th standards respectively and transfer in the middle of the academic year would disrupt the education of his children. Thereafter, he approached this court. On 30.10.2015, this court granted an order of status-quo. The respondent-Corporation contended that the petitioner was relieved on 13.10.2015 itself and as such, the petitioner could not have continued at Mangaluru and he ought to have reported at Ramagundam. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner reported for duty at Ramagundam on 04.05.2016 as his children completed their examination in 12th and 10th standards.
3. As the petitioner had reported to duty at the transferred place, he was not interested in prosecuting the writ petition subject to the condition that the contemplated disciplinary action for alleged unauthorized absence against him is dropped. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that the petitioner continued at Mangaluru by virtue of interim order of status quo and as the petitioner had submitted that he would not claim any salary for the period during which, he stayed back at Mangaluru, disposed off the writ petition, with the observations that the Corporation shall not proceed with any disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner for the alleged unauthorized absence.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge could not have directed, not to proceed against the petitioner for unauthorized absence as the same would be contrary to law and facts. Further, he submits that to maintain certain discipline, it is necessary for the Corporation to initiate proceedings for misconduct or for unauthorized absence.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on going through the material on record, we are of the opinion that the appeal would not merit any consideration. It is an admitted fact that on transfer of the petitioner from Mangaluru to Ramagundam, he had submitted two representations dated 09.10.2015 and 11.10.2015, but there was no response from the respondent-Corporation. Moreover, there was an order of status quo in the writ petition. Further, the petitioner has made a submission before the learned Single Judge that he would not claim any salary for the period during which he was at Mangaluru subsequent to his transfer and the learned Single Judge also has made it clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any salary or allowance for the period during which he did not report for duty at Ramagundam. The learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned order exercising judicial discretion and equity which needs no interference by this Court. However, the order of the learned single shall not be treated as a precedent.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms