The Managing Director vs Mr. Ibrahim. N
2023 Latest Caselaw 751 Kant

                                           -1-
                                                       WA No.610 of 2021




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
                                        PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                           AND
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                            WRIT APPEAL NO.610 OF 2021 (S-RES)


                 BETWEEN:

                 1.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
                      KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN
                      BANGALORE-560 009.

                 2.   THE DIRECTOR, KPTCL
                      ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Digitally             CAUVERY BHAVAN
signed by             BANGALORE-560 009.
RUPA V
Location: High
Court of                                                   ...APPELLANTS
Karnataka
                 (BY MS/MRS. ANNU BHARDWAJ, ADV., FOR
                        MR. HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADV.,)
                 AND:

                 1.   MR. IBRAHIM .N
                      S/O BUDEN SAHEB
                      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
                      JUNIOR ENGINEER
                      MESCOM COLONY
                      AVINAHALLI VILLAGE, SAGAR
                      SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

                                                           ...RESPONDENT
                 (BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV.,)
                             -2-
                                         WA No.610 of 2021




     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
03/02/2020 IN WP NO.37030/2017.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

Smt.Annu Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the

appellant.

Mr.Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for the

respondent.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against

order dated 03.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.37030/2017

by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent

has been disposed of.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the respondent was appointed as a

Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the establishment of

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

WA No.610 of 2021

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The

respondent, at the relevant point of time, was posted as

Section Officer, MESCOM, Avinahalli Branch, Sagar

Taluk, Shivamogga District. The respondent was also

given an additional charge of Additional Assistant

Engineer and Care Branch. One Mr.Firoz lodged a

complaint on 21.11.2014 against the respondent before

the Police Inspector, Lokayukta, inter alia stating that

for preparation of the estimation report, the respondent

had demanded bribe from the complainant. It is further

submitted that the complainant had paid a sum of

Rs.1,000/- and the respondent had called him to pay

the remaining amount of Rs.4,000/-.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the first

information report was registered against the

respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7,

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

WA No.610 of 2021

Act'). Thereafter, the Director of the Corporation has

passed an order under Section 12(3) of the Act as well

as under Regulation 14 of the Karnataka Electricity

Board Employees Classification, Disciplinary Control

and Appeal Regulations, 1987. The respondent being

aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 29.07.2017

passed by the Director of Corporation, challenged the

same in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge

inter alia held that the order dated 29.07.2017 passed

by the Director suffers from the vice of non-application

of mind as no reasons have been assigned. The order

dated 29.07.2017 has been quashed and the proceeding

has been restored to the file of Director of Corporation to

examine the matter in terms of Section 12(4) of the Act

and thereafter, to arrive at the decision afresh within a

period of four weeks. The appellants, instead of taking

any action, have filed this appeal.

WA No.610 of 2021

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted

that the order dated 29.07.2017 has been passed by the

Director of Corporation after due application of mind

and reasons have been assigned. On the other hand,

learned counsel for the respondent supported the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. We have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

record. From perusal of order dated 29.07.2017, it is

evident that no reasons have been assigned for arriving

at the conclusion mentioned therein. The order dated

29.07.2017 reflects non-application of mind. The same

is therefore, rightly been quashed by the learned Single

Judge. We do not find any ground to differ with the

view taken by the learned Single Judge. However,

WA No.610 of 2021

liberty is reserved to the appellants to pass a fresh order

within a further period of four weeks.

With the aforesaid liberty, the appeal is disposed

of.

Consequently, the pending interlocutory

application is also disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV