IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NOS.4321-4322 OF 2016 [S-RES] AND WRIT APPEAL NOS.4323-4324 OF 2016 [S-RES] BETWEEN:
MS. SUJEE TEPPAL, DAUGHTER OF T.K. SURENDRA BABU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, B-2016, MAY FAIR ANTHEM, BOGANAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 068. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. M.V.CHARATI, ADVOCATE] AND 1. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, (FULLY OWNED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) (A DEFENCE PUBLIC SECTOR UNERTAKING) CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RWR & DC, HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, BENGALURU-560 017.
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER (P&A), HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
5. THE GENERAL MANAGER (RC) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, BENGALURU-560 017.
6. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR), RWR & DC, HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, NO.15/1, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. S.R.KAMALCHARAN, ADVOCATE R1 TO R6] THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.53020-23/2016 [S-RES] DATED 05.10.2016.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing the writ petitions, the appellant has preferred these appeals to grant the prayer sought in the writ petitions.
2. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein sought to quash the enquiry proceedings, the order of suspension and also sought mandamus to the respondents to accept the resignation and to issue the relieving letter or in the alternative permit her to work in the respondent organization.
3. The case of the appellant is that she joined the respondent organization after completing Bachelor of Engineering [Electrical] from IIT., Madras, as ‘Design Trainee-Grade II Officer’ on 30.06.2007. In the appointment letter, it is mentioned that there would be a one year training period and on successful completion, she would be absorbed as Engineer Grade II Officer. In this regard she was absorbed with effect from 15.07.2008 and Letter of Absorption was issued on 02.09.2008. On being appointed as Engineer [Aero] she worked in the Automatic Flight Control Systems Group, Design and Drawing Department. She was promoted as Deputy Manager [Design]. The respondents called for suitable candidate to undergo Master of Science in Cranfield University, U.K., and M.Tech. in various IIT. The appellant along with 25 other persons were selected for one year full time M.Sc. [Aerospace Vehicle Design-Avionics] at Cranfield University, U.K. She was asked to sign a service bond, wherein she was required to work for a period of 5 years after completion of the training period. Accordingly, she signed the said service bond. She reported for duty on 12.03.2015 after successfully completing the M.Sc. in Aerospace Vehicle Design at Cranfield University, U.K., with Course Directors Award. However, on 29.04.2015 on the ground of personal reasons she submitted her resignation letter, which was not accepted by the respondents. The second resignation letter was sent through proper channel. In the meanwhile the appellant proceeded to join one Honeywell Technology Solutions Private Limited. She was issued with a legal notice asking her to pay of Rs.40,00,000/- as liquidated damages and also served with a charge-sheet. She denied the charges leveled against her. Since she did not pay the liquidated damages, the respondents-company initiated a civil suit before the Civil Court. She was suspended by an Order dated 25.08.2016.
4. Writ petitions were filed to quash the charge- sheet dated 28.06.2016 issued by respondent No.5 at Annexure-‘L’, consequently to quash the enquiry proceedings dated 01.09.2016 at Annexure-‘Q’, to quash the order of suspension at Annexure-‘P’ and for directing the respondents to accept the resignation letter dated 29.04.2015 and 09.07.2015 at Annexues-‘F and H’ respectively and in the alternative permit her to work in the respondents-company by considering her representations at Annexures-‘M and N’.
5. Assailing the dismissal of the writ petitions, it has been contended that the appellant has not violated the Code of Conduct and not committed any misconduct and the respondents after accepting the resignation and issuing the relieving letter can initiate action for damages for the breach of any of the conditions. The learned Single Judge has failed to note that the respondents cannot refuse to accept the resignation letter and was not justified in coming to the conclusion that there are prima facie material against the appellant to initiate the enquiry proceedings without noticing the fact that the respondents had initiated the recovery proceedings against the appellant for violation of the service bond, on the ground that the appellant had quit the respondents-company after utilizing the sponsorship from the respondents. The initiation of the recovery proceedings itself shows that the appellant was no more an employee of the respondents organization and initiation of the departmental enquiry was bad in law. Further, there is no wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order. The claim of the respondents for return to duty and liquidated damages of Rs.40,00,000/- is bad in law. Issuing the order of suspension pending enquiry is filled with mala fide and before issuing the charge-sheet no show-cause notice was issued.
6. It is relevant to see that according to the service bond, the appellant was required to work for a period of 5 years after completion of the training period, for respondent No.1 company. Breach of the said service bond would entitle the respondents to recover Rs.40,00,000/- and liquidated damages. On reporting back to the duty after undergoing one year full time Master of Science [Aerospace Vehicle Design–Avionics] in Cranfield University, U.K., the appellant returned back to her duty on 12.03.2015, however, submitted her resignation letter on 29.04.2015, which was not accepted. She sent a second resignation letter on 09.07.2015 through proper channel, however, proceeded to join one Honeywell Technology Solutions Private Limited. Hence, by letter dated 25.08.2015, she was informed by the company to report for duty and also to remit Rs.40,00,000/- towards the bond liability, which was not responded to. Another letter dated 07.09.2015 was sent, which was also ignored. The respondents-company sent a third letter on 24.09.2015 asking her to report for duty immediately and to remit the bond liability as well as the shortage of notice pay of Rs.1,26,387/-. However, even the said letter was not responded to. Again a letter was sent on 28.09.2015 which also had the same fate as the earlier letters. Considering the unauthorized absence and non-payment of the liquidated damages, a legal notice was issued to the appellant on 28.12.2015, however no reply was sent even to the said legal notice. Hence, on 28.06.2016 charge-sheet came to be served stating 7 charges framed against her. She was informed about the date of enquiry. In response to the same, she denied the charges leveled against her. The respondents-company also initiated a civil suit for the recovery of liquidated damages.
7. As per the service bond, if the appellant were to commit breach of the said service bond, would require to pay Rs.40,00,000/- as liquidated damages. She was bound to serve the company for a minimum period of 5 years. She was required to serve the respondents- company after reporting on 12.03.2015 for a period of 5 years. On the other hand, she tendered her resignation and in spite of being informed that the resignation was not accepted, she left the respondents-company and joined one Honeywell Technology Solutions Private Limited. The appellant has clearly violated the service bond and committed breach of the condition of the bond. The learned Single Judge has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the definition of misconduct as defined by Rule 5(i) of the HAL Conduct, Discipline, Appeal Rules-1984, which stipulates that ‘wilful subordination or disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of his superior, would amount to misconduct’. Rule 5 and Rule 5(v), states that absence without leave or overstay the sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds tantamount to misconduct. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion after appreciating the overall facts and circumstances of the case that prima facie, the petitioner had committed misconduct as defined under the aforesaid Rules and therefore, the respondents- company was justified in issuing the charge-sheet and suspending her, which cannot be defaulted.
There is no merit in these appeals and accordingly the same are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*