Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mahesh. B. M vs Disciplinary Authority on 1 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:4399
WP No. 22082 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 22082 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESH B. M,
S/O. MAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 635,
5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, KAMALANAGAR,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
WORKING AT
SRI. MAHESH B.M.
HAL, EMPLOYEE ID 5324/25363
HIGHLY SKILLED TECHNICIAN (FITTING (C-7),
COMPOSITE SHOPS, WING ASSY ARDC,
DESIGN COMPLEX.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBAREDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed SRI. KUMARA R.S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
by SUCHITRA M
J
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
ARDC DIVISION, HAL,
MARTHAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
2. ENQUIRY OFFICER (DESIGNATED),
RETD SM (HR)- AIRCRAFT DIVISION,
ARDC DIVISION, HAL,
MARATHAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:4399
WP No. 22082 of 2023
3. CHIEF MANAGER (HR) AND
PRESENTING OFFICER,
ARDC DIVISION, HAL,
MARATHAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
4. THE MANAGER (VIGILANCE),
ARDC DIVISION, HAL,
MARTHAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASHING
ANNEXURE-K VIDE NOTICE DATED 26/09/2023 BEARING NO.
D/ARDC/AGM(SHOPS)/DA/135/2023 ISSUED BY THE R1 AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the workman
employed with respondent No.1 assailing the second show
cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority pursuant
to enquiry held against the petitioner. This Court, vide
order dated 04.10.2023, has granted interim order.
NC: 2024:KHC:4399
2. The respondents, on receipt of notice, have filed
an application seeking vacation of stay granted on
04.10.2023. The learned counsel for the respondents has
primarily raised two objections. The first limb of argument
canversed by the learned counsel for the respondents is
that the petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition against
a show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority
based on an enquiry report. The second limb of objection
raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that
the petitioner, admittedly, being a workman, cannot
invoke writ jurisdiction before this Court.
3. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner, referring to the material on record, would
contend that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer
is totally biased and the report is submitted in gross
violation of principles of natural justice. To substantiate
that the petition is maintainable before this Court, reliance
is placed on the HAL Disciplinary Action Rules, 1967.
However, learned counsel for the respondents has
NC: 2024:KHC:4399
effectively countered the learned Senior counsel's
contention. He would point out that these rules are
admittedly applicable to the officers of the respondents
and not to the workman. He would contend that the
petitioner is a workman, the article of charges and enquiry
is in terms of standing orders and therefore, this
contention also cannot be entertained by this Court at this
juncture.
4. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the
records.
5. Having heard the counsels on record, this Court
is not inclined to entertain the petition at this juncture. I
have also given my anxious consideration to the judgment
cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. The
second show cause notice issued by the disciplinary
authority was preceded by an enquiry. The petitioner,
instead of offering an explanation, has knocked the doors
of the writ court. On examining the records, this Court is
NC: 2024:KHC:4399
more than satisfied that the petitioner has hastily
approached this Court in absence of cause of action. If the
disciplinary authority, based on an enquiry report has
issued a show cause notice, it is incumbent on the part of
workman to offer an explanation.
6. At this juncture, learned Senior counsel would
fairly concede and submit that the petitioner may be given
a reasonable opportunity to counter the allegations made
in the second show cause notice. The statement is placed
on record. Though I am not inclined to grant any
indulgence at this juncture, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is disposed of, reserving
liberty to the petitioner to offer his
explanation to the second show cause
notice issued by the authority.
ii. Fifteen days time is granted to the
petitioner to submit his explanation to the
second show cause notice.
NC: 2024:KHC:4399
iii. Learned counsel for the respondent has
assured this Court that complete enquiry
materials will be furnished to the petitioner
and the petitioner shall collect it from the
concerned office.
iv. All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
