IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION No.47301/2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN :
RUDRESHA. P S/O. PUTTASWAMY, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.109, VISHWESHWARA NAGARA, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAMOD R., ADV.) AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN THE PANDAVAPURA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KHARKANE LIMITED, PANDAVAPURA R. S., MANDYA DISTRICT-571435.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE PANDAVAPURA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KHARKANE LIMITED, PANDAVAPURA R.S., MANDYA DISTRICT-571435.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER THE PANDAVAPURA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KHARKANE LIMITED, PANDAVAPURA R.S., MANDYA DISTRICT-571435. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-E DATED 23.9.2017 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged legality of the order dated 23.09.2017, passed by the Managing Director of the Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Limited, the respondent No.2, whereby the Managing Director has suspended the petitioner from the service.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2001, on the post of Fitter. During the tenure of his service, he was transferred to the Department of Store Keeper as an Assistant, by order dated 01.09.2016. However, on 25.02.2017, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, wherein it was alleged that it was his duty to ensure that the materials are kept safely in the store, although on 23.02.2017, two brass rods were found to be kept under the shutter of the store.
On 28.01.2017, the Security Supervisor has informed the General Manager that while he was going for beat in the factory, he discovered that two copper/brass rods were kept under the shutter of store. Their placement created a suspicion, especially as the marks clearly showed that two brass rods have been moved from the stores to the place where they were discovered. A suspicion was also there that the petitioner may want to commit theft of these two brass rods. Hence, a show-cause notice was issued. Immediately on 27.02.2017, the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice. However, by order dated 17.09.2017, the petitioner has been suspended from his job. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been suspended after a lapse of seven months from the date of issuance of show-cause notice. Secondly, according to the Standing Order No.25, after a complaint is received against an employee, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to him. However, no such opportunity was given to him. Therefore, the suspension order is illegal and unsustainable. Thus, it deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
5. It is, indeed, trite to state that an employer is empowered to suspend an employee in case there is contemplation of holding an enquiry against the employee. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 23.09.2017 clearly reveals that due to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner, the employer is contemplating holding of an enquiry.
6. The Standing Order No.25 is as under:-
25. Complaints-
i) An employee desirous of re-dressing a grievance arising out of his employment or relating to wrongful execution on the part of Supervisor, shall either himself or through his representative submit a complaint to the Managing Director or any other Officer appointed by the Managing Director in this behalf.
ii) The Managing Director or any other Officer authorized by him shall within 15 days, investigate the complaint at such times and places as he may fix. The employee concerned and his representative shall have the right to be present at such investigation and such representative shall be entitled to represent the employee therein.
iii) Where the complaint alleges unfair treatment or wrongful execution on the part of the Supervisor, a copy of the order finally passed by the Managing Director shall be supplied to the Complaint if he asks for one. In other cases the order passed by the Managing Director or of the decision of the investigating officer action, if any, taken thereon by the Managing Director shall be intimated to the Complainant.
Provided that complaints relating to assault or abuse by any person holding a Supervisory position or refusal or an application for urgent leave shall be inquired into immediately by the Managing Director or such Officer as he may appoint.
7. The requirement of Standing Order No.25 is merely that in case a complaint is lodged against an employee, an opportunity of hearing should be given to him. Since a complaint was lodged against the petitioner, a show-cause notice was, indeed, issued to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has replied to the same on 27.02.2017. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that an opportunity was not given to him. Under the said Standing Order, there is no requirement that he needs to be heard in person prior to passing of the suspension order. Since the enquiry is contemplated, the respondents were well justified in suspending the petitioner.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE