Bangalore Metropolitan ... vs A S Mallikarjuna
2023 Latest Caselaw 1321 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                   WA No.1164 of 2021




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                     DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
                                         PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                             AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
                        WRIT APPEAL NO.1164 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)
             BETWEEN:
             1.   BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
                  TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                  CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD
                  BANGALORE
                  BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
                  REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
Digitally                                                   ...APPELLANT
signed by      (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R. ADV.,)
RUPA V
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka      1. A.S. MALLIKARJUNA
                  S/O SIDDAMALLAIAH
                  AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
                  NO.10, SRI MALEMAHADESHWARA KRUPA
                  50 FEET ROAD, VITALANAGAR
                  2ND STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
                  BENGALURU-560078.
                                                          ...RESPONDENT
             (BY SRI. SHEKAR L, ADV.,)

                  THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
             HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
             19.04.2021 PASSED IN WP NO 32310/2016.

                  THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
             THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                          WA No.1164 of 2021




                             JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against an

order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P.No.32310/2016 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 posted as an Accounts

Officer in the establishment of the Bangalore Metropolitan

Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Corporation'). The respondent was placed under

suspension on 14.01.2016. Thereafter, charge sheet dated

25.01.2016 was served on him on the allegation that he

failed to follow certain circulars / official memorandum in

respect of purchase of spare parts resulting in a loss of

Rs.6,16,079/- to the Corporation. The respondent

furnished a reply to the aforesaid articles of charges on

26.02.2016. However, by an order dated 27.02.2016, the

Corporation imposed penalty of recovery of Rs.59,447/- on

the respondent. The Corporation dispensed with the

WA No.1164 of 2021

enquiry on the ground that the respondent was due for

retirement on 29.02.2016. The respondent challenged the

aforesaid order in a writ petition. The learned Single

Judge, by an order dated 19.04.2021, has allowed the writ

petition and has quashed the order imposing penalty on

the respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the order imposing punishment was not preceded by any

enquiry and therefore, the order of imposition of penalty

suffers from procedural infirmity.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent has supported the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

5. We have considered the submissions made on both

sides and have perused the record. Admittedly,

departmental enquiry was not held against the respondent

on the ground that he was due for superannuation on

29.02.2016 and without holding any enquiry, just two days

WA No.1164 of 2021

prior to superannuation, order dated 27.02.2016 was

passed by which a sum of Rs.59,447/- was sought to be

recovered from the respondent. There appears to be no

basis for computation of the aforesaid amount and the

respondent has not been given any opportunity to prove

his case in the enquiry. Therefore, the order dated

27.02.2016 has been rightly quashed.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single

Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory application,

if any, is also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV