Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs K B Kumar on 23 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.790 OF 2021 (L-TER)
IN
W.P. NO.22632 OF 2015 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S BANGALORE ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.
REP. BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR -572101.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION
AND HUMAN RESOURCES
CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009
REP. BY DIRECTOR (A & HR) KPTCL.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADV.,)
AND:
K.B. KUMAR
S/O K.B. BASAPPA
2
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.5, VISHWABHARATHI NILAYA
I MAIN, I CROSS, OPP. FORT GATE
BANASHANKARINAGARA, TUMKUR -572101.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. RAGHUPATHY M.T. ADV., FOR C/R1)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.
22631/2015 AND 22632/2015 DATED 25.03.2021.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed against the
order dated 25.03.2021 by which the writ petition
preferred by the respondent has been allowed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the respondent was appointed
as Assistant Mazdoor on probation. His services were
confirmed and he was posted to the post of Assistant
Line man and thereafter, as Lineman. Without
conducting enquiry the services of the respondent
were terminated by an order dated 09.04.2009. After
termination of the services of respondent, an enquiry
was held and the enquiry report was submitted by
Karnataka Lokayukta dated 05.05.2009. Being
aggrieved, the respondent approached the labour
court. The Labour court by an award answered the
reference in the negative. The award passed by the
Labour court was assailed in a writ petition. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been
filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in
quashing the enquiry report. It is further submitted
that no challenge was made to the enquiry report by
the respondent.
4. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused
the record. Admittedly, the respondent was a
permanent employee. It is also not in dispute that his
services were terminated without holding an enquiry
and after termination of his services the enquiry was
conducted. The learned Single Judge therefore, rightly
held that on the date of submission of the enquiry
report i.e., on 05.05.2009, the respondent was not in
employment as his services were already terminated
on 09.04.2009. The learned Single Judge has
therefore, allowed the writ petition and has reserved
the liberty to appellant to conduct a fresh enquiry and
to pass suitable order in accordance with law within a
period of six months. The services of respondent No.3
were admittedly terminated without holding any
enquiry. The learned Single Judge has therefore,
rightly set aside the order of termination as well as
enquiry report and has reserved the liberty to the
appellant to hold a fresh enquiry. No ground for
interference with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is made out.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
