Karnataka High Court
Sri A P Chandrashekaraiah vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 14 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
WP No. 14252 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 14252 OF 2014 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SRI A P CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O LATE PUTTANNA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NO.580, GURUNILAYA
SOUTH EXTENSION
CHIKKANAYANAHALLI
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572241
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ANANDA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
CHAITHRA 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
A
Location:
LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAVAN
HIGH BANGALORE-560 009
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPTD BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
K P T C L (APPELLATE AUTHORITY)
TUMKUR CIRCLE, TUMKUR-572 101
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
K P T C L (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY)
TUMKUR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
WP No. 14252 of 2014
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
BEARING NO. EEEL/ TKR/ 10929-31/ TUMKUR DATED
30.3.1998 PASSED BY THE R-3 AT ANNX-E AND THE ORDER
BEARING NO. SEE/ SPA/ 2950 / 52 DATED 24.6.1999 PASSED
BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-F AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
SANCTION THE WITH HELD 2 ANNUAL INCREMENTS, REFIX
THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND TO PAY ARREARS THERE OFF
AND PAY ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF AND TO PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
PASS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned
penalty imposed by respondent No.3 in denying two
increments with cumulative effect vide order dated
30.03.1998 as per Annexure-E and the order dated
24.06.1999 passed by respondent No.2/Appellate
Authority in dismissing the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Petitioner was appointed to the post of Second
Division Clerk in respondent No.3/Establishment on
29.09.1971. While petitioner was working in the Accounts
Section of Divisional Office at Tumakuru, a show cause
notice came to be issued on 02.12.1996. In the said show
cause notice, following allegations were made against the
petitioner:
"1) Daily abstract of materials drawn for
works pertains to Kunigal and Tiptur sub-divisions
under A/c Code 14.140, 14.150, 14.160 posted
upto June '96. Further postings pending upto this
date. Though it is required to be posted every
month.
2. 'C' Register postings done upto June '96 in
respect of A/c Code 14.220 leaving 14.150, 14.160.
Further postings pending for all A/c Code thought it
is expected to post monthly.
3. 'C' Register not yet opened in case of work
orders issued under the correct series causing
shortage of folios for booking outlay.
4. Estimate copies received from field staff
are not maintained and verified with reference
material drawn by the field staff and booked in the
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
'C' Register thereby the correctness of the drawal
by the field staff cannot be ensured.
5. C.W.I.P. statement and categorization
statement could not be submitted for the first and
second quarter from this division because you have
not completed this item of work inspite of several
instructions. Thereby I am getting reminders and
nasty letters from CCA, Bangalore. The recent
reminder is received on 7.11.96, wherein he has
viewed the delay very seriously.
6. In Kunigal sub-division it is observed that
JE.Works Unit has drawn 54 PCC poles against work
order No.W-36105 and returned 24 PCC poles vide
RI No.252/6. This transaction is recorded to have
been traced in stock account but the same has not
been traced in 'C' Register as you have not even
opened the folio for the said work order.
7. You are in the habit of leaving the office
without prior permission from supervisory staff. It
is a persistant cronic charge. Normally you won't
find in the seat during office hours, for which act of
negligency and indiscipline you have been punished
in several occasions still then you have not made
up your mind to improve your attitude."
3. Petitioner, on receipt of show cause notice,
tendered his explanation. The respondent No.3 issued a
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
second show cause notice on 15.01.1998 as per Annexure-
C alleging that petitioner is guilty of not reporting to the
duty and is in the habit of leaving the office early. In the
second show cause notice, there were allegations that
several assigned works were not completed. To the said
show cause notice, petitioner offered his explanation on
20.01.1998 as per Annexure-D.
4. The Disciplinary Authority having taken
cognizance of the explanation offered by the petitioner
found that the explanation is not satisfactory. Referring to
the explanation offered on both the occasions, the
Disciplinary Authority having found that petitioner has not
seriously disputed the allegations in both the show cause
notices proceeded to impose penalty by withholding two
annual increments with cumulative effect.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the penalty imposed by
the respondent No.3, petitioner preferred appeal before
the respondent No.2/Appellate Authority.
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
6. The respondent No.2/Appellate Authority vide
order dated 24.06.1999 was not inclined to entertain the
grounds urged by the petitioner. Consequently, appeal
was dismissed.
7. This captioned petition is filed on 20.03.2014.
The penalty withholding two increments is dated
30.03.1998. Therefore, there is delay of not less than 15
years in assailing the penalty order passed by the
respondent No.3 and confirmed by the respondent
No.2/Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused
the material on record.
9. Before I proceed to examine the merits, it
would be imperative for this Court to examine as to
whether the captioned petition can be entertained as this
writ petition is filed after 14 years of passing the penalty
order.
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
10. It is also borne out from the records and as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents that petitioner retired on 30.06.2000.
Post retirement, petitioner has virtually kept quite for a
long period of 14 years and has not chosen to assail the
order of penalty and the order passed by the Appellate
Authority in declining to entertain the appeal filed by the
petitioner. The judgments cited by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents are squarely applicable to
the present case on hand. If petitioner has accepted the
penalty and has not chosen to take it further by
questioning the order passed by the Appellate Authority,
no indulgence can be granted if petitioner is guilty of delay
and laches. This Court cannot grant any indulgence by
invoking extraordinary remedy by invoking Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. This Court in catena of
judgments, placing reliance on the dictum laid down by
the Apex court has held that where a litigant knocked the
doors of the writ court after inordinate delay, the delay in
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
itself will constitute a bar in making a motion for a writ as
it is an adequate ground to refuse exercising discretion in
favour of a litigant who is guilty of delay and laches.
11. Even otherwise, on merits, this Court is not
inclined to accede to the contention of the petitioner that
the penalty thereby withholding two increments with
cumulative effect is in gross violation of principles of
natural justice. As rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents, Regulation
12(1)(b) of the KEBE CDC and A Regulations, 1987, clearly
contemplates that discretion is vested with the Disciplinary
Authority either to proceed with the departmental enquiry
if necessary having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case.
12. In the present case on hand, the Disciplinary
Authority referring to a few categorical admissions
tendered by the petitioner while offering explanation to
both the show cause notices has come to conclusion that
in the light of stand taken in both the reply notices to the
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
show cause notices, the same would clinch the issue and
no further enquiry is warranted. This discretion exercised
by the Disciplinary Authority way back in 1998 cannot be
tested in 2024. It would be useful for this Court to cull out
the second reply notice dated 20.01.1998 issued by the
petitioner. The same reads as under:
"UÉ,
PÁgÀ太ÁðºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («)
PÀ « ªÀÄA, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ,
vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ.
¸Áé«Ä,
«µÀAiÀÄ: µÉÆÃPÁ¸ï £ÉÆÃnùUÉ GvÀÛgÀ.
G¯ÉèÃR: ¤ªÀÄä PÀZÉÃj £ÀA.¯É.C:¸À ¯É D:2: E ¸À 4: 8399:
401: ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15:1:98;
***
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlAvÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ CjPÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ.
1. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è E®èzÉà EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀzÉà ¥ÀzÉà £À£ÀUÉ
£ÉÆÃnøÀ£ï ¤Ãr¢ÝÃj. J®èzÀPÀÄÌ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀieÁ¬Ä¶ PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ.
K£ÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ C¦üøï£À DªÀgÀt ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ®Äè ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
FUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀ»¹gÀĪÀ PÉ®¸À £À£ÀUÉ ºÉƸÀzÁVzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä
¸ÉßûvÀjAzÀ, »AzÉ F PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß «ªÀð»¹gÀĪÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÀjtÂw
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¨ÉÃgÉ ±ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è CAzÀgÉ
(J¸ÁÖ©èµïªÉÄAmï ¸ÉPïµÀ£ï) £À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ
¨ÉÃPÉAvÀ¯Éà £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥À ºÉÆj¹gÀÄwÛÃj.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
2. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ J¯Áè £ÉÆÃnøÀÄUÀ½UÀÆ ¸ÀªÀĵÀðPÀªÁV
¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ GvÀÛgÀ ¤ÃrzÉÝãÉ.
3. F PÉ®¸À ºÉƸÀzÁzÀÝjAzÀ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°è C£ÀĨsÀªÀ E®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ
ªÉÃUÀªÁV PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÀUÀÄwÛ®è. zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr ¸ÀºÀPÀj¹.
4. EzÀÄ ¸ÀºÁ ªÉÄð£À GvÀÛgÀªÉà ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
5. EzÀÆ PÀÆqÁ CzÉà ¥À£ÀgÁªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀiÁVzÉ.
»ÃUÁV ªÉÄð£À J¯Áè C¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¤gÁPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁgÀzÉÆÝà ZÁrPÉÆÃgÀgÀ ªÀiÁw£ÀAvÉ ¥ÀƪÁð UÀæºÀ¦ÃrvÀgÁV
¨ÉÃPÉAvÀ¯Éà £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É CgÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁrgÀÄwÛÃj. ºÁUÁV ªÉÄð£À
J¯Áè C¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ½UÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÁzsÀå¸ÀÜ£À®è JA§ÄzÁV £À£ÀߪÀÄ£À«.
EAw £ÀªÀĸÁÌgÀUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,
¸À»/-
20:1:98"
13. The reply notices are found to be self
explanatory and it is in this background, the Disciplinary
Authority without taking recourse to departmental enquiry
has imposed a minor penalty by withholding two
increments. The allegations indicated in the show cause
notice coupled with explanation offered by way of reply
notices clearly gives an inference that there is a clear
dereliction of duty having failed to report to the office in
time and was also found not to be present in the office
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6502
premises during office hours. The explanation offered by
the petitioner that on account of lack of experience, he
was seeking advice at the nearby establishment also
clinches and substantiates the allegations made by the
Disciplinary Authority which would not require any further
enquiry.
14. In the light of discussion made supra, this Court
is of the view that no indulgence is warranted. Petitioner
has accepted this penalty with all grace way back in 1998.
The petitioner is found to have woken out of slumber in
2014, and a feeble attempt is made by the petitioner by
taking a chance by knocking the doors of the writ Court.
The facts on hand clearly demonstrate that it is a stale
case which cannot be entertained by this Court.
15. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
