Sri Bharath Kumar vs The Chamundeshwari Electricity ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11954 Kant

                             1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        PRESENT

              THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A.No.505/2022(S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI BHARATH KUMAR
S/O RAMEGOWDA
AGED 29 YEARS
R/A PARASANAHALLI VILALGE
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211.                   ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
       SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED
       CORPORATE OFFICE
       VIJAYANGAR 2DN STAGE
       HINAKAL, MYSURU - 570 017
       REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

2.     THE SUPERINTENDET ENGINEER
       AND APPELLATE AUTHORTIY
       CESC LTD, HOLENARASIPURA - 573 211.

3.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(V)
       AND DISPLICANRY AUTHORITY
       WORK AND MAINTENANCE DIVISION
       HOLENARASIPURA - 573 211.        ...RESPONDENTS
                                 2

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER MADE IN WP 25459/2018 DATED 03/12/2019 BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE SUITABLE ORDERS AS DEEMED
FIT AND PROPER.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS    DAY,   VISHWAJITH       SHETTY   J.,   DELIVERED      THE
FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful

petitioner challenging the order dated 03.12.2019 passed

by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.No.25459/2018.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and

also perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this

appeal are, the appellant who was appointed as a Junior

Lineman was discharged from service on the ground that

he had suppressed material fact about the pendency of a

criminal case against him while seeking appointment to

the post of Junior Lineman. The departmental appeal

preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the

Appellate Authority, and therefore, he had filed

W.P.No.25459/2018 before this Court challenging the

order of discharge as well as the order passed by the

Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal. The learned

Single Judge vide the order impugned has dismissed the

said writ petition and hence, this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that

the appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case,

and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified

in passing the impugned order. He submits that the

appellant has not suppressed any material while seeking

appointment and as a matter of fact, the query in the

application was with regard to conviction order passed if

any against the candidate, and therefore, the learned

Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents to

reconsider the case of the appellant in the light of the

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

PAWAN KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.1.

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441

5. A perusal of Annexure-D which is the copy of the

online application submitted by the appellant seeking

appointment for the post of Junior Lineman would go to

show that the applicant was required to give a

declaration that he is not involved in any criminal case or

that he is not convicted in any criminal case.

Undisputedly, an FIR was registered against the appellant

and others on 08.04.2013 for the offence punishable

under Section 307 IPC, in which he was charge-sheeted

and tried before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in

S.C.No.166/2016, which ultimately ended in acquittal on

01.09.2017. The learned Single Judge after referring to

the order of acquittal has observed that the order of

acquittal is not a honourable acquittal but the accused

were acquitted on the benefit of doubt.

6. In Pawan Kumar's case supra, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court having found that the FIR was registered

against the appellant therein inspite of the complainant

filing an affidavit that he did not want to pursue his case

any further and that the case was registered due to a

misunderstanding, had come to the conclusion that the

criminal case was of trivial in nature, and therefore,

accordingly allowed the appeal and directed the

authorities to reinstate the appellant therein. However, in

the present case, the appellant was tried for a heinous

offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and he had to

face a full fledged trial before the Sessions Court for the

offence alleged against him and ultimately, the Sessions

Court had acquitted all the accused in the said case

granting benefit of doubt to them. Therefore, the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar's case

cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.

7. The learned Single Judge having found that the

appellant who had filed an application seeking entry to

public service was guilty of suppressing the material fact

regarding the pendency of a criminal case against him,

has refused to entertain the writ petition with an

observation that the said order shall not come in the way

of the appellant staking his claim for fresh employment.

8. We find no infirmity in the said order passed by

the learned Single Judge which needs interference.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK