Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ravi S/O Chandrappa Patil vs The Managing Director on 4 July, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 103758 OF 2018 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVI
S/O CHANDRAPPA PATIL
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
LAXMI NAGAR,
AT POST: MACCEHE,
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location:
RAKESH High Court
S
HARIHAR
of
Karnataka,
Dharwad
AND:
Date:
2023.07.06
11:14:16
+0530
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR/
APPEALATE AUTHORITY,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL),
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU.
2. THE DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATION RESOURCE) &
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
KPTCL KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ELECTRICAL O & M,
CITY DIVISION,
HESCOM,
BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B S KAMATE, ADV FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADV FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED
17.12.2013 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN
NO.KA/V/Pra/NiNi/Bi 54/18697/2010-11 AND THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 20.04.2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN
NO.KA/V/Pra/NiNi/Bi 82/42456/2013-14 AS PER ANNEXURE-F
AND H RESPECTIVELY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
ORDER
The petitioner who was an employee of the
respondent - Corporation has approached this Court in the
instant writ petition with the prayer to quash the orders
Annexures - F and H dated 17.12.2013 passed by the 2nd
respondent and the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the
1st respondent respectively.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the material on record.
3. On the allegation that the petitioner was
involved in a case of misappropriation which had caused
financial loss of Rs.13,40,000/-, a domestic enquiry was
held against the petitioner in which the Enquiry Officer had
submitted a report on 13.05.2011 holding that the charges
levelled against the petitioner was proved. Based on the
said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority had passed
an order of punishment on 17.12.2013 dismissing the
petitioner from service and also had ordered for recovery
of an amount of Rs.7,78,672/- excluding the amount
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
already recovered from the petitioner. Being aggrieved by
the said order of punishment, the petitioner had preferred
an appeal before the 1st respondent Appellate Authority
and the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate
Authority vide order Annexure - H dated 20.04.2015.
Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though serious charge of misappropriation has been made
against the petitioner, the fact remains that the petitioner
had admitted his guilt before the Enquiry Officer and also
before the Disciplinary Authority and had volunteered to
repay the misappropriated amount. He submits that the
Appellate Authority has failed to take into consideration
the aforesaid aspect of the matter. He submits that the
punishment imposed on the petitioner having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case is disproportionate
and harsh. He has referred to the charge at Annexure - A
and submits that as against the other delinquent
employees, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a lesser
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
punishment and therefore there is discrimination while
punishing the petitioner. In support of his arguments, he
has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. and
others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents have argued in support of the impugned
order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority
which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and
submits that since the charges levelled against the
petitioner are grave, the punishment imposed on him
cannot be said to be disproportionate. They submit that
merely for the reason that the petitioner had admitted his
guilt and has come forward to pay the amount, the charge
levelled against the petitioner does not get mitigated.
They also submit that the scope of interference by this
Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review is very
narrow and unless the petitioner establishes that the
Disciplinary Authority is guilty of discrimination or that the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
order of punishment is disproportionate against the proven
charges, there is no scope for this Court to interfere in the
matter. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the writ petition.
6. I have given my anxious considerations to the
arguments addressed on both sides.
7. The charge alleged against the petitioner is one
of misappropriation that the petitioner had caused total
financial loss of Rs.13,60,066/- to the respondent -
Corporation. In the domestic enquiry held against the
petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report
holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved
by the management. Based on the said report, the
Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration that the
petitioner was involved in a serious charge of
misappropriation has thought it fit to pass the order of
punishment dismissing him from service and also has
ordered to recover the same of Rs.7,78,672/- from the
petitioner which included the amount already recovered
from the petitioner. The said order of punishment has
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
been up held by the Appellate Authority. Though the
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
Disciplinary Authority had imposed a lesser punishment to
the other delinquent officers compared to the petitioner,
the material on record would go to show that there was no
allegation of misappropriation as against other delinquent
officers who were also tried alongwith the petitioner in the
domestic enquiry. The allegation of misappropriation was
only as against the petitioner and not as against the other
delinquent officers and therefore, it cannot be said the
Disciplinary Authority was guilty of discrimination while
imposing punishment. The judgment in the case of
Rajendra Yadav supra was rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case where persons who were found
guilty in departmental proceedings on same charges were
imposed with different punishment. The said judgment
therefore cannot be made applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
8. In the present case, the petitioner who was
holding a responsible post had involved himself in a
serious charge of misappropriating a huge amount during
the course of his duty. Though the petitioner has offered
an explanation to the said act of his stating that he was
compelled to commit the act of misappropriation, having
regard to the family requirement, the material on record
would go to show that the act of misappropriation was
continued by the petitioner for a period of about one year
six months. The amount of Rs.13 lakh and odd was
misappropriated by the petitioner over a period of one
year six months and therefore, it cannot be said that
because of his family requirements, the petitioner had
committed the act of misappropriation.
9. Considering the seriousness of the charges
levelled against the petitioner, the Disciplinary authority as
well as the Appellate Authority had thought it fit to pass an
order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service
and also had ordered for recovery of the amount
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
misappropriated. The scope of interference by this Court,
in exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India was considered by this
Court in W.P. No.109981/2015 disposed of on 14.06.2023
and in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the said order, it has been
observed as follows:
"13. In a case of proven misconduct, when
the statute empowers the disciplinary authority for
passing appropriate punishment and if the
punishment imposed is upheld by the appellate
authority, the Courts / Tribunals have very little
scope to interfere. While considering the question of
proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent,
the Court should also take into consideration the
nature of duty performed by him and other relevant
circumstances which go into the decision making
process. If the delinquent was holding a responsible
post and if he has breached the trust and acted with
dishonesty he is required to be dealt with iron hands.
If honesty and integrity are in built requirements for
the post held by him, no lenient view can be taken
against him. Where a person deals with public
money, highest degree of integrity, honesty and
trustworthiness is a must and there cannot be any
compromise on the same. Any misplaced sympathy
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
or benevolence would have the effect of mitigating
the seriousness of the charges and therefore the
Courts are required to be cautious of the same.
14. xxx
15. The scope of judicial review in exercise of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India as against
findings recorded in a departmental proceedings and
the punishment imposed on the basis of such
findings is very limited and narrow. Unless such
findings are patently illegal, perverse or based on no
evidence, in normal circumstances, the Courts /
Tribunals cannot interfere with the same. The
findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in the
present case are supported by evidence. The
petitioner has not pointed out any discrepancy in the
evidence of the department. It is not the case of the
petitioner that there is absolutely no evidence
against him. Petitioner was holding a responsible
post of Manager of a nationalized bank. Serious
charges of misconduct have been made against the
petitioner and as against proven misconduct, the
disciplinary authority had thought it fit to pass an
order of dismissal against the petitioner. Unless the
punishment is shockingly / strikingly disproportionate
or harsh, in normal circumstances, this Court cannot
interfere with the same and that too when the said
order of punishment has been confirmed by the
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6631
WP No. 103758 of 2018
Appellate Authority. In a properly held departmental
enquiry, when the statutory requirements and
principles of natural justice has been complied with,
the scope for interference under Article 226 f the
Constitution of India is bare minimum. The courts
cannot act as appellate authority and re-appreciate
the evidence and give a finding of its own."
Under the circumstances, I am of the considered
view that there is no scope for this Court to interfere with
the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority which has been confirmed by the Appellate
Authority.
I do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh/Ct:Bck
