Smt. Geeta Guruling Kadalskar vs The Karnataka Power Transmission ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7890 Kant

                         1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                      BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

      WRIT PETITION NO.100584/2022 (S-DIS)

BETWEEN:

SMT. GEETA GURULING KADALSKAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O. PLOT NO. 25,
SCHEME NO. 13, DOORDARSHAN NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
                                     ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADANGOUDA N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
      CORPORATION LIMITED,
      CAUVERY BHAVAN,
      BANGALORE-560009,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      GENERAL MANAGER( A AND HR)

2.    THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
      HESCOM, REG.
      OFFICE: CORPORATE OFFICE,
      NAVANAGAR, P.B. ROAD,
      HUBBALI-580025.

3.    THE GENERAL MANAGER,
      ADM AND HRD
      HESCOM, REG.
      OFFICE: CORPORATE OFFICE,
      NAVANAGAR, P.B. ROAD,
                                2




     HUBBALLI-580025,
     DIST-DHARWAD.
                                            ..RESPONDENTS
     (BY SRI B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2022 BEARING NO.
HESCOM/PRA.VYA(AA)/LE(CI)/SA.LE(CI)/HI.SA(VI)/VI.VA.
266/2021-22 CYS-5395 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER   IS   CONCERNED     PASSED     BY    THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 03.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F
AND CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER BY
REVOKING THE SUSPENSION ORDER.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

It is a case of petitioner that he was appointed

as Assistant Engineer by the 1st respondent-

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited,

Bengaluru on contract basis on 05.11.2003 and

posted to Ankalagi section in Gokak Taluk Sub-

Division office of HESCOM. Thereafter he was

regularized on 30.04.2007, he was subsequently

transferred to Urban Division Office, Dharwad and

later promoted to the post of Assistant Executive

Engineer on 04.08.2012, subsequent to that he was

transferred to Ugar Sub-Division Office of HESCOM on

14.10.2019. This being the state of affairs, 3rd

respondent passed impugned order of suspension on

25.01.2022 assigning indistinguishable and vague

reasons on the ground that the petitioner might

tamper the records.

2. Petitioner was suspended by alleging

irregularities committed in Ugar Sub-Division during

the period of 2018 to 2021. Petitioner made a

representation dated 25.01.2022 to respondent No.3

to revoke his suspension order and another

representation dated 03.02.2022 which are at

Annexures-E and F respectively. It is the contention of

petitioner that Regulation 9 of the Karnataka Electric

Board Employees (classification, Disciplinary, Control

and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for short,

'Regulations, 1987') is relied by the learned counsel

for the petitioner regarding minor penalty and major

penalties at Regulation 11 of the Regulations, 1987

which prescribes procedure for imposing minor and

major penalties respectively. Where a detailed

enquiry requires to be held, charges are required to

be framed to prove the alleged misconduct and

misbehavior. It is also stated that an Enquiry Officer

ought to have been appointed and should permit to

examine the witnesses and also provide opportunity

to the Government servant to examine pursuant to

which disciplinary action is to be taken. It is the

contention of the petitioner that no enquiry was held

as prescribed under the Regulation 11 of the

Regulations, 1987. Learned counsel contends that

the 3rd respondent has acted in an unconstitutional

arbitrary manner and the order of suspension is

perverse and vindictive in nature, which is opposed to

principle of natural justice and opposed to legitimate

expectation and violative of Article 311 of Constitution

of India. Hence, he contends that the impugned order

passed by the 3rd respondent is perverse and the

same requires to be quashed.

3. In view of the above grounds and

submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner, the

present petition is filed seeking quashing of

Annexure-E.

4. Per Contra, the learned counsel Sri

B.S.Kamate contends that along with the petitioner

herein 19 other officials are involved in

misappropriation and irregularities alleged therein

initially an order of suspension was passed against all

of them by several orders and to petitioner by order

vide Annexure-E.

5. Learned counsel further contends that

pursuant to the order passed at Annexure-E the

suspension order has been revoked by order dated

31.03.2022. Wherein, the petitioner herein is named

at Sl.No.2. The said order of revocation is filed today

along with a memo by the learned counsel for

respondent, which is placed on record.

6. On perusal of the said order of revocation

passed by the 3rd respondent, it is evident that the

suspension order passed as against the petitioner vide

Annexure-E has been revoked and thereafter he has

been given a posting at 33 K.V.S. and L Nodal Office,

HESCOM, Vijayapur. The said order was passed

keeping open the initiation of disciplinary enquiry as

against all the delinquent officials including the

petitioner herein.

7. Learned counsel further contends that

another writ petition was filed by one of the

suspended employee in Writ Petition No.100559/2022

which came to be dismissed by a co-ordinate bench of

this Court and same was challenged in Writ Appeal

No.100102/2022(S-RES) which came to be disposed

off by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated

01.04.2022. In the said order, the order of the single

Judge was not disturbed and direction was given to

the authority to pass a fresh order on reconsidering

the order of suspension by considering the Judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of

India and Another Vs. Asho Kumar Aggarwal,

reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147.

8. Learned counsel further contends that since

several employees were involved in the

misappropriation and irregularities, the order of

suspension has been revoked and they have been

given fresh posting as per the order dated

31.03.2022. In view of the said order and the

submissions of the learned counsel for respondent the

present petition filed by the petitioner to quash

Annexure-E which is an order of suspension would not

survive for consideration in view of the revocation of

the said order of suspension by the 3rd respondent.

The other prayer sought for by the petitioner at

prayer (b) also would not survive for consideration as

he is seeking continuation of service by revoking the

suspension order which has been already ordered in

his favour vide order dated 31.03.2022.

9. In view of the same, the present petition

would not survive for consideration. Hence, the same

is dismissed as having become infructuous. However,

the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court

pursuant to any further enquiry or order passed

against him in the Departmental Enquiry, if any.

No order as to cost.

SD/-

JUDGE