Karnataka High Court
Lakshmeesha. K. K vs G.Sheela on 2 April, 2024
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
WA No. 1536 of 2023
C/W CCC No. 69 of 2024
WA No. 1488 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1536 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 69 OF 2024
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1488 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN W.A.NO.1536/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATE OFFICE, CESCOM, MYSORE-570 017.
2. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY
SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR(ADMIN AND HR),
Digitally signed CORPORATE OFFICE, CESCOM, MYSORE-570 017.
by SHARADA
VANI B
Location: HIGH 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
COURT OF CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
KARNATAKA
CORPORATION LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE, CESCOM, MYSORE-570 017.
4. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V SABARAD., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
WA No. 1536 of 2023
C/W CCC No. 69 of 2024
WA No. 1488 of 2023
AND:
LAKSHMEESHA K K,
S/O K K KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
UNDER SUSPENSION ND HOLDING LIEN AT
BETTADAPURA BUT CLAIMS TO BE WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(ELE) CESCOM,
HOOTAGALLI, SUB DIVISION, MYSORE - 570 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.M L SUVARNA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K PUTTEGOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
18/11/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.23957/2023 AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.
IN CCC No.69/2024:
BETWEEN:
LAKSHMEESHA. K. K.
S/O K KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
CESCOM, HOOTGALLI,SUB DIVISION, MYSORE.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI.M L SUVARNA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K PUTTEGOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. G.SHEELA
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
CORPORATION LTD., NO. 29, 80 FT ROAD,
VIJAYA NAGARA 2ND STAGE, MYSORE - 570 017.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 9.2.2024
2. SRI. RAVI KUMAR P, DIRECTOR (ADMIN & HR)
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
CORPORATION LTD.,
NO. 29, 80 FT ROAD, VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
MYSORE - 570 017.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
WA No. 1536 of 2023
C/W CCC No. 69 of 2024
WA No. 1488 of 2023
3. SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY PRASANNA,
CHIEF ENGINEER,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY,
CORPORATION LTD.,
NO. 29, 80 FT ROAD,
VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
MYSORE - 570 017.
4. SRI. PANKAJ KUMAR PANDEY
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL)
CORPORATE OFFICE,
KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 001.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V SABARAD., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.H L PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 3;
SRI. NITHIN B M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A CHANDRA CHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE ACTION AGAINST
THE RESPONDENTS FOR CONTEMPT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
NOT IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2023 IN WP
NO.23957/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.A.NO.1488/2023:
BETWEEN:
ASHOK M P
S/O LATE PALAKSHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O NO 11927, 4TH STAGE, VIJAYA NAGARA
2ND PHASE, MYSORE 570 032.
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF CESC, HOTTAGALY SUB DIVISION,
HOOTAGALLI, MYSORE
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VEERESH MAHESH UPPIN., ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
WA No. 1536 of 2023
C/W CCC No. 69 of 2024
WA No. 1488 of 2023
AND:
1. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
CORPORATE OFFICE, CESCOM,
MYSORE 570 017.
2. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN & HR)
CORPORATE OFFICE, CESCOM,
MYSORE 570 017.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD
CORPORATE OFFICE, CESCOM,
MYSORE 570 017.
4. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 001.
5. LAKSHMEESHA K K S/O K KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
UNDER SUSPENSION AND HOLDING
LIEN AT BETTADAPURA
BUT CLAIMS TO BE WORKING AS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) CESCOM,
HOOTAGALLI, SUB DIVISION, MYSORE 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H L PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER Dt. 18-11-2023
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 23957/2023
(S-RES) AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT APPEALS AND THIS CCC ARE COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
WA No. 1536 of 2023
C/W CCC No. 69 of 2024
WA No. 1488 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Upon request and consent of learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, this writ appeal is taken up for final
consideration today itself.
2. Preferred under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court
Act, 1961, the appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of learned Single Judge dated 18.11.2023 passed in Writ
Petition No.23957 of 2023, whereby learned Single Judge has
set aside the order of suspension of the petitioner on the
ground that the Fact Finding Team which was appointed came
to conclusion that the petitioner was not responsible for the
accident in which a co-employee died by electrocution.
3. The petitioner was working as Assistant Executive
Engineer in the office of CESC, Hootagalli Sub-Division,
Hootagalli, Mysore. It appears that on particular date, that is,
on 21.10.2023 due to some power problem, the employee
named Sri Satish.K., Mechanic Grade-II who was working at
the electric line, died due to electrocution. The petitioner in
capacity of supervising engineer was supposed to take
necessary and precautionary measures. The death of said
employee Sri Satish was found to be attributable due to
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
negligence of petitioner in not providing safety measures
in general and to the said Sri Satish, in particular.
3.1 The competent authority of the appellant corporation
passed order dated 21.10.2023 suspending the petitioner. The
order of suspension which figures on the record of the petition
unequivocally recited that the suspension was pending the
departmental action against the petitioner in respect of his
alleged negligence.
3.2 In the writ petition the case of the petitioner inter alia
was that a Fact Finding Team was appointed on the very day to
enquire into the incident of death of Sri Satish and that the said
Fact Finding Team in its report found that the petitioner could
not be held liable for the death. Urging the said ground of
Fact Finding Team, the petitioner prayed before learned Single
Judge to set aside the suspension.
4. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition relying on the
conclusion of Fact Finding Team to observe that since the Fact
Finding Team did not find the petitioner responsible for the
accident, the suspension was not liable to be continued.
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
5. In two page order, learned Single Judge has rested his view
on the report of the Fact Finding Team overlooking the position
of law that suspending an employee is the domain of the
employer. Secondly, the Fact Finding Team was only in relation
to the incident took place and when the employer had
suspended the petitioner in contemplation of departmental
inquiry, on the sole ground of some report, the suspension
could not have been interfered with by the learned Single
Judge.
5.1 The interference was not justified in the order of
suspension by learned Single Judge also in view of Rule 10 of
Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1957 which deals with the suspension. The rule provides
that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is
subordinate or any other authority empowered by the
Government in this behalf may place a Government Servant
under suspension.
5.2 The suspension could be ordered to a Government
Servant under the circumstances spelt out under the said rule
which arise under:
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
"(a) Where there is prima facie evidence to show
that he was caught red-handed while accepting
gratification other than legal remuneration by the
persons authorised to investigate under the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under any
other law;
[(aa) where there is prima facie evidence to show that
he was found in possession or had at any time during
the discharge of his official duty been in possession of
pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to
known source of income, by the persons authorised to
investigate offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 or under any other law;]
(b) where a charge-sheet is filed before the competent
Court against him for any offence involving moral
turpitude committed in the course of his duty; or
(c) where a charge-sheet is filed before the competent
Court against him on charge of corruption,
embezzlement or criminal misappropriation of
Government money;
(d) Where there is prima facie evidence of gross
dereliction of duty against him."
5.3 In the above circumstances the Government Servant
could be placed under suspension.
5.4 In the present case when the employer was inclined to
institute the departmental proceedings in respect of the alleged
negligence of the petitioner-government servant and the
suspension was reflective of the said position, this court does not
find favour with the order of learned Single Judge in which he has
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
readily interfered with the domain of the employer to suspend the
employee and has set aside the suspension on the ground
which not found her favour with the court. The employer has to
be allowed its play to initiate the Department Enquiry, when
contemplated.
5.5 When an employer intends to initiate the department inquiry
and suspends the employee pending such action, the object is to
ensure that the Government servant is kept away from a position
where he can interfere with the conduct of the enquiry and that he
may not tamper with the documentary or other evidence in any
manner. This being the one of the object of suspension pending
enquiry, on that score also learned Single Judge could not have
set aside the order of suspension.
6. The order of learned Single Judge could not be sustained, the
same is set aside.
7. However, following directions would operate, while allowing
the appeal.
(i) The appellant-employer shall, if advised, shall proceed with
the departmental action against the respondent without any delay;
The departmental proceedings, if initiated shall be completed within
three months from the date of initiation
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13412-DB
(ii) It is open for the appellant that the petitioner may be posted at
any other place to ensure that he is not able to influence the
enquiry or the witnesses, etc;
(iii) The subsistence allowance which may be payable to the
petitioner during the suspension period shall be regularly paid.
In view of order passed in this Writ Appeal No.1536 of 2023,
the Writ Appeal No.1488 of 2023 stands infructuous and is
disposed of accordingly.
The contempt proceedings in Contempt Petition No.69 of
2024 does not survive as the main appeal is decided as per the
above order.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
