Karnataka High Court
M A Quadri S/O Abdul Wahav Quadri vs The Managing Director Nekrtc And ... on 16 June, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.Nos.201119/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.201119/2022 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
M.A.Quadri S/o Abdul Wahav Quadri,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Ex-Divisional Officer,
NEKRTC, Kalaburagi Division No.1,
R/o Plot No.6, shaik Colony, 1st Cross,
Near Hakeem Chowk, Vijayapur.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Krupa Sagar Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Managing Director,
NEKRTC, Central Office,
Sarige Sadan, Main Road,
Kalaburagi-585103.
2. The Managing director,
KSRTC, Central Office,
Bangalore-560005.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Sudhir Singh R.Vijapur, Advocate)
2 W.P.Nos.201119/2022
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ
of certiorari, quashing the impugned order passed by 2 nd
respondent in file bearing No.PÀgÁ¸À/PÉÃPÀ/²¸ÀÄ/Û r3/
r1922/434/2021-22 dated 22/23-09-2021, at Annexure-
D to the writ petition and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following::
ORDER
The petitioner, who was working as a Divisional
Officer with the respondents - Corporation has preferred
the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the order
passed by the second respondent dated 22/23-09-2021
vide Annexure-D.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Though the matter is posted for orders, with
the consent of learned counsel appearing on both side,
the matter is taken up for final hearing.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was
working with the respondent - Corporation as a
Divisional Officer and there was no complaint as against
him till the date of his retirement. Subsequently, a
charge sheet was issued against the petitioner alleging
that due to his dereliction of duty, the Corporation had
suffered loss of Rs.35,14,797/-. On receipt of the
charge sheet, the petitioner has submitted his reply to
the same. Thereafterwards, without holding any
enquiry, the order at Annexure-D has been passed by
the second respondent withholding his four annual
increments and being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner is before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the
simple reason that the same has been passed without
holding any enquiry. He has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
O.K.Bhardwaj vs. Union of India reported in
AIROnlie 1996 SC 546 and submits that an
opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee was
necessary before passing the order impugned.
6. Though learned counsel appearing for the
respondents sought to defend the order impugned, he is
not in a position to dispute that the order impugned has
been passed without holding any enquiry.
7. Under the circumstances, having regard to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of O.K.Bhardwaj (Supra) and considering the fact that
the order impugned at Annexure-D has been passed
without holding any enquiry and without granting any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same
cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
at Annexure-D dated 22/23.09.2021 passed by the
second respondent is quashed.
Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed
against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Srt
CT-SMP
