The Managing Director vs Bhuvaneshwari D/O Krishnappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2627 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                       PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

                          AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

           WRIT APPEAL NO.100084 OF 2020(S)

BETWEEN:

1.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
      KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LIMITED,
      4TH FLOOR, COFFE BOARD BUILDING,
      NO.1, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
      BENGALURU-01.

2.    THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
      KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
      MALAPRABHA BALADANDE KALUVE,
      SUB DIV-4, KIRESUR, TQ:HUBBALLI.

3.    THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
      KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LIMITED
      CENTRAL OFFICE, WALMI BUILDING
      BELUR, BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
                                       ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    BHUVANESHWARI D/O KRISHNAPPA PARANDE
      AND W/O DEVENDRAPP PUJAR
      AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:REVENUE INSPECTOR,
                           2



      REHABILITATION OFFICE, UKP,
      NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587102.

2.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
      IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
      MS BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.

3.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
      UKP KRISHNA BHAYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,
      ALAMATTI-586201.

4.    THE GENERAL MANAGER
      LAND ACQUISITING & REHABILITATION
      RESETTLEMENT, UKP NAVANAGAR,
      BAGALKOT-587102.

5.    THE REHABILITATION OFFICER
      UKP NAVANAGAR,
      BAGALKOT-587102.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH &             SRI.
MANJUNATH A KARIGANNAVAR, ADVS FOR R1)
(SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR R2, 4 & 5)
(SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADV. FOR R5)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE   ORDER OF THE    LEARNED SINGLE      JUDGE   DATED
12.12.2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.101007/2014
AND ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION.


      THIS   APPEAL   COMING   ON   FOR    PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                    3



                            JUDGEMENT

The appellants-Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Limited

(for short, 'KNNL') and its officers are before this Court

under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961

assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated

12.12.2019 passed in WP No.101007/2014, wherein the

learned Single Judge directed the respondent-Water

Resources Department, KNNL to initiate enquiry

proceedings against the officials/officers, who are

responsible for not providing posting to the 1st

respondent/petitioner and recover the financial loss caused

to the concerned Organization.

2. We have heard Sri. Kodagouda S. Patil,

learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B

Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri. G.K.

Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for respondent

Nos.2, 4 and 5 and Sri. S.A. Sondur, learned counsel for

respondent No.3 and perused the writ appeal papers.

3. Brief facts are that, 1st respondent-FDA, who is

an employee of the Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigama Limited

(for short, 'KBJNL') was on deputation to KNNL under order

dated 4.3.2008. Initial deputation was for a period of

three years and subsequently, it was extended for further

period of two years. In the meanwhile, 1st respondent was

relieved from her duty by KNNL on 21.10.2013. It is the

case of the 1st respondent that on relieving her from KNNL,

she reported to duty at KBJNL. She was also requested for

continuation of her deputation in KNNL by making a

representation dated 4.2.2013. As there was no order

either for continuation of her deputation at KNNL or

providing posting at her parent organization i.e. KBJNL,

she was before the Writ Court in WP No.101007/2014.

The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties was of

the view that the petitioner's services from 21.10.2013

(the date on which she was relieved from KNNL) till

18.2.2016 (the date on which she was provided posting) is

to be regulated. The Writ Court also directed for release of

arrears of salary for the said period. Further, the Writ

Court also ordered to initiate enquiry proceedings to find

out as to who is responsible for not providing posting to

the 1st respondent and recover the financial loss caused to

the concerned Organization.

4. Sri. K.S. Patil, learned counsel for the

appellants submits that the 1st respondent was initially

deputed to KNNL for a period of three years, subsequently,

her deputation was extended for further two years. It is

his submission that according to the Rules relating to the

Deputation, an employee could be deputed for a period of

maximum five years and as the 1st respondent had

completed her deputation period provided under Karnataka

Civil Services Rules, 1957, the KNNL relieved the 1st

respondent on 21.10.2013. He further submits that it was

for the 1st respondent to go and report to duty at parental

organization i.e. KBJNL. It is submitted that since the 1st

respondent failed to report to duty at her parent

organization (KBJNL), she is not entitled for any benefits,

particularly, arrears of salary. He further submits that

subsequently, during the pendency of this appeal, Upper

Krishna Project (for short, 'UKP') has paid salary to the 1st

respondent for the period from 21.10.2013 to 18.2.2016.

It is his submission that both organizations i.e. KBJNL and

KNNL have not suffered any financial loss. He, therefore,

submits that conducting of enquiry as directed by the

learned Single Judge would be unnecessary and the

officers of Corporation would be put to untold hardship.

Thus, he prays for allowing the writ appeal by setting aside

the impugned order of the learned Single Judge passed in

the aforesaid writ petition.

5. Per contra, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath,

learned counsel for the 1st respondent/petitioner submits

that the deputation of the 1st respondent was extended for

further two years by communication dated 29.8.2013. He

further submits that the 1st respondent was relieved from

her duty on 21.10.2013, even prior to completion of two

years of extended period of deputation. Thus, he submits

that without assigning any reason, the appellants-KNLL

could not have relieved the 1st respondent before

completion of extended deputation period of two years.

He also acknowledges the payment of arrears of salary by

UKP during the pendency of this appeal.

6. Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government

Advocate submits that since there is an interim order of

stay in the present appeal, government could not initiate

enquiry proceedings and if permission is given, the

government would conduct enquiry as directed by the

learned Single Judge.

7. It is no doubt that the petitioner was initially

deputed by order dated 4.3.2008 from KBJNL to KNNL for

a period of three years. Even though she was initially

deputed for three years, she was continued at KNNL and

borrowing organization has not repatriated the services of

the 1st respondent on expiry of three years deputation

period. In the meanwhile, the parent organization i.e.

KBJNL by order dated 29.8.2013 (Annexure-G) extended

the deputation period of 1st respondent for further period

of two years from 1.9.2013. Even though the deputation

of the 1st respondent was extended for a period of two

years from 1.9.2013, without assigning any reason under

Annexure-H dated 21.10.2013, the 1st respondent was

relieved from borrowing organization i.e. KNNL.

Thereafter, the 1st respondent made representations to

both KBJNL as well as KNNL for either providing posting in

the parent organization or for continuation of deputation at

KNNL. Ultimately, in February 2016, the petitioner was

provided with posting. Therefore, the Writ Court has

rightly concluded that the period between 21.10.2013 to

18.2.2016 is to be regulated and for no fault of 1st

respondent, the 1st respondent was kept out of work. It is

the fault of KBJNL or KNNL in not providing posting to the

1st respondent. It is not the case of KBJNL or KNNL that

posting was given and respondent No.1 failed to report to

duty. As no posting was given, the 1st respondent was not

in a position to continue either in KBJNL or KNNL. The Writ

Court has rightly directed the State Government to initiate

the enquiry proceedings to find out as to who are

responsible for not providing posting to the 1st respondent

and recover the financial loss caused to the concerned

organization. It is pertinent to state that both

organizations i.e. KBJNL and KNNL are responsible for

payment of arrears of salary to respondent No.1 for the

above stated period without extracting any work from the

1st respondent. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal and

same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is

dismissed.

8. As submitted by the learned Government

Advocate, the respondent/Government shall initiate

enquiry as directed by the learned Single Judge and

complete the same within a period of four months from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

SD JUDGE

SD JUDGE

JTR