Karnataka High Court
Supreeth S Kumar vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 5 August, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.1624 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SUPREETH S. KUMAR
S/O SAMPATH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER
SULLIA SECTION
MESCOM
SULLIA TALUK-574 239
DAKSHINA KANNADA
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
NO. A-301, ETERNIS
METAGALLI EXTENSION
MYSURU-570 020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUPREETH S. KUMAR, PARTY-IN PERSON)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
CAUVERY BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR
MESCOM
1ST FLOOR, MESCOM BHAVAN
CORPORATE OFFICE
MESCOM, KAVOOR CROSS ROAD
BEJAI, MANGALORE-575 004.
3. DIRECTOR TECHNICAL
MESCOM
-2-
1ST FLOOR, MESCOM BHAVAN
CORPORATE OFFICE
MESCOM, KAVOOR CROSS ROAD
BEJAI, MANGALORE-575 004.
4. GENERAL MANAGER (A & HRD)
GROUND FLOOR
CORPORATE OFFICE
MESCOM, KAVOOR CROSS ROAD
BEJAI, MANGALORE-575 004.
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E)
MESCOM, PUTUR DIVISION
PUTTUR-574 201.
6. NISCHITHA K. GOWDA
W/O SUPREETH S. KUMAR
D/O KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
PAPANNI STORES, NEAR BALLAL CIRCLE
3RD CROSS, KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM
MYSURU-570004
(CELL NO.7337730825)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. PADMA S. UTTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5;
V/O DTED 25.01.2024 NOTICE TO R6 IS DIFERRED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN MEMO
NO.MESCOM/GMAH/ADM/240/2023-GM ADM HR/I/66033/2023
DATED 17.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE R4 PLACING THE
PETITIONER UNDER SUSPENSION AT ANNEXURE-A WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 05.08.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
C.A.V. ORDER
Petitioner/party-in-person working as an Assistant
Engineer at Sullia Section, MESCOM is aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 17.11.2023 issued by respondent
No.4 wherein petitioner is placed under suspension.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer with MESCOM,
was placed under suspension following an incident on
28.10.2023. The suspension order, dated 17.11.2023, was
issued by respondent No.4, who claimed the petitioner had
acted improperly by disconnecting the power supply to
Santhosh Towers. The building housed multiple
installations, and while four installations were allegedly in
arrears, power was disconnected for the entire building.
Additionally, a verbal altercation between the petitioner
and another individual, Naveen, was recorded and
circulated on social media, reportedly tarnishing the
reputation of MESCOM. The petitioner contended that his
actions were within the scope of his duties and that the
suspension was without authority, as respondent No.3,
-4-
who issued the suspension, did not have the requisite
competence. He further argued that the incident was
blown out of proportion and influenced by personal
vendettas, particularly as Naveen was a close friend of the
petitioner's wife, with whom he has strained marital
relations.
3. Petitioner/party-in-person in the captioned
petition contends that he has put in seven years of service
and his entire service under the department is exemplary
and has received several appreciations from his higher ups
for his work and achievement in collecting revenue for the
company. To substantiate his contribution to the
department, petitioner has relied on the award conferred
on him for the year 2022-23 for best performance and
appreciation letter dated 26.5.2023 and also the best
performance section award granted under Mangalore
circle. Petitioner therefore contend that the impugned
suspension order passed by respondent No.3 primarily is
one without authority as respondent No.2 is the appointing
-5-
authority and Respondent No. 3 lacks competence in
placing the petitioner under suspension.
4. He would also contend that the audio which has
gone viral is a morphed audio and one Naveen, who
appears to be a close friend of his wife with whom his
marital relationship was not cordial has circulated the
incident. While questioning the authority of respondent
No.3 to impose the order of suspension, petitioner also
claims that the allegation in the suspension order is that
the power to the entire building is disconnected at the
instance of petitioner by opening the GOS of the
transformer. While disputing the respondents' claim,
petitioner has contended that opening of G.O.S which
contains high voltage current is practically impossible,
unless power supply is disconnected. Therefore, petitioner
contends that the impugned suspension order is vindictive
and in absence of any prima facie material, the impugned
suspension order is not sustainable.
-6-
5. The respondents maintained that the
suspension was appropriate and necessary. They argued
that, as the petitioner's appointing authority, respondent
No.2 had delegated the power to suspend to respondent
No.3, and the action was taken following the Managing
Director's instructions. The respondents emphasized that
the petitioner's actions, including disconnecting power to
the entire building despite some occupants having paid
their bills, were unwarranted and harmful. They also
contended that the petitioner's conduct and the
subsequent social media exposure had brought disrepute
to the organization. To prevent potential tampering with
evidence or influence over witnesses, they deemed it
necessary to suspend the petitioner.
6. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. This
Court has thoroughly examined the material placed by the
petitioner/party-in-person and also the material placed on
record by respondents along with the statement of
objections.
-7-
7. Petitioner/party-in-person is working as an
Assistant Engineer. The alleged incident dated 28.10.2023
has led to passing of impugned suspension order. The
respondents allege that petitioner has arbitrarily
disconnected power supply to the entire building located in
Santhosh Towers. Respondents allege that even though
four shop owners had paid bills, power supply to the entire
building was disconnected. Petitioner/party-in-person has
seriously contested this statement and has countered this
allegation by stating that the bills were paid by the
consumers in the afternoon and therefore, respondents
have deliberately withheld the electricity bills. The
respondents on the subsequent date of hearing have
placed on record the electricity bills. The timings of the
bills clearly indicate that the bills were paid in the
afternoon while the power supply was disconnected in the
morning.
8. Upon reviewing the case, the Court noted that
the petitioner's conduct, even if true as alleged by the
-8-
respondents, did not justify such a severe action of
suspension. The Court found that the disconnection of
power was an act aligned with the petitioner's duty to
recover unpaid bills. The subsequent payment of bills
following the disconnection indicated that the petitioner
was performing his responsibilities. Furthermore, the
petitioner's commendable service record, including
recognition for outstanding performance, was not
adequately considered in the respondents' decision-
making process. The Court highlighted the need for a fair
assessment of the situation, emphasizing that suspension
should only be exercised under grave and compelling
circumstances, which were not evident in this case.
This Court is of the view that the respondents had
acted hastily and disproportionately. The suspension order
was deemed an overreaction to a trivial issue, particularly
in light of the petitioner's role and the nature of the
alleged incident.
-9-
9. The suspension in the present case is not
justified because the actions of the petitioner, an Assistant
Engineer, were aligned with his duties and responsibilities
in recovering unpaid electricity bills. The alleged
misconduct, including the disconnection of power to
Santhosh Towers and the subsequent verbal altercation,
does not constitute sufficient grounds for suspension,
particularly when the disconnection was a necessary step
to recover arrears. The decision to suspend appears to be
influenced by personal factors and lacks substantial
evidence of any grave misconduct. Judicial review in this
case is warranted to ensure that the principles of fairness
and proportionality are upheld, as the respondents'
decision to suspend the petitioner was not based on a
proper assessment of the facts and failed to consider the
petitioner's commendable service record. The review
ensures that disciplinary actions are not taken arbitrarily
or excessively, protecting employees' rights and
maintaining the integrity of administrative processes.
- 10 -
10. The power of suspension has to be exercised
with circumspection, care and proper application of mind.
Employer must make a fair and proper assessment of the
matter in the given circumstances and carefully scrutinize
that prima facie there exists grave and compelling
circumstances which justifies suspension of an employee.
Having regard to the position of the petitioner/party-in-
person in the department, the suspension of
petitioner/party-in-person is obviously subjected to social
ridicule, condemnation and humiliation. Even if the
alleged incident is accepted to be true, petitioner/party-
in-person's actions in initiating recovery proceedings and
the alleged disconnection was only intended to recovery
the arrears of electricity bills. The recovery is also
accomplished which is evident from the documents
produced by respondents. The recovery is post
disconnection and therefore, the contention of the
respondents that petitioner has deliberately disconnected
power supply even though four of the consumers had paid
- 11 -
the electricity bills is not substantiated by the
respondents.
11. Whether petitioner has exceeded in his power in
opening GOS which according to the petitioner is
impossible unless power supply is disconnected is a matter
to be enquired in the departmental enquiry. This Court at
this juncture, is of the view that respondents have over
reacted on a trivial issue. Therefore, the contention of the
respondents that the petitioner/party-in-person has to be
placed under suspension to deny him access to the records
is also not substantiated.
12. In the light of the discussions made supra, this
Court is of the view that the suspension order is bad. The
records clearly reveal that it is unjust on the part of
respondents to place petitioner under suspension when
admittedly his actions clearly aligned to the role assigned
to him in the department and even if some untoward
incident has occurred, this is not a case where the
petitioner could have been placed under suspension.
- 12 -
Despite the quashing of the suspension order, this
judgment does not bar the respondents from taking any
further disciplinary action against the petitioner, provided
it is done through a proper and fair process. The Court
clarifies that the respondents retain the right to conduct a
departmental inquiry to investigate the alleged incidents
and actions of the petitioner. Any subsequent action
should be contingent upon the findings of such an inquiry
and must adhere to due process, ensuring that the
petitioner is given a fair opportunity to present their case.
This provision ensures that while the immediate
suspension is lifted, any legitimate concerns regarding the
petitioner's conduct can still be addressed through
appropriate channels.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
- 13 -
(ii) The impugned suspension order dated
17.11.2023 issued by respondent No.4, as referenced in
Annexure "A," is hereby quashed.
(iii) However, this order does not preclude the
respondents from taking appropriate action, subject to the
outcome of a departmental inquiry, if any.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
*alb/-.
