Karnataka High Court
Shivakumaraswamy B L vs The Managing Director on 5 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9302
WP No. 604 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 604 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAKUMARASWAMY B L
S/O LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
CORPORATE OFFICE, KPTCL,
KAVERI BHAVANA, BANGALORE-560 009
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE,
Digitally signed CAUVERY BHAVAN
by ALBHAGYA
BANGALORE-560009
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DIRECTOR (A AND HR)
KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL)
KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9302
WP No. 604 of 2024
4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE)
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
MAJOR WORK DIVISION
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE
IMPUGNED PUNISHMENT ORDER BEARING NO.PÀ«¥À椤/©52/
©94/ 24732/2021-22 / ¹ DATED 13/12/2022 PASSED BY THE R2
VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WP AND THE ORDER ON APPEAL
DATED 25/08/2023 BEARING NO. PÀ«¥À椤/©52/ ©94/
24732/2021-22 / ¹ PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND
ALSO THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R3 BEARING NO.
PÀ«¥À椤/©52/ ©94/ 24732/2021-22 / DATED 29/11/2023 VIDE
ANNEXURE-N TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9302
WP No. 604 of 2024
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned
punishment order bearing No. PÀ«¥À椤/©52/ ©94/ 24732/2021-
22 /¹ dated 13.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2 as per
Annexure-J and the order passed by respondent No.1-
appellate authority dated 25.8.2023 bearing No.
PÀ«¥À椤/©52/ ©94/ 24732/2021-22/¹., as per Annexure-L.
2. The case on hand relates to dereliction of duty
on the part of the Assistant Executive Engineers posted at
Major Work Sub-Division, Tumakuru. Respondent No.2,
who was the disciplinary authority has issued a show-
cause notice to the petitioner and his predecessors
alleging that Assistant Executive Engineers who were
posted at the Major Work Division, Tumakuru, failed to
intimate the superiors in regard to the compensation
determined by the District Court in Misc.No.38/2014.
Respondent No.2 on securing the explanation from the
petitioner herein has imposed penalty of withholding of
one increment and has also ordered for recovery of a sum
NC: 2024:KHC:9302
of Rs.6,980/-. Feeling aggrieved by the penalty imposed
by respondent No.2, petitioner preferred an appeal before
respondent No.1-Appellate Authority and the appellate
authority has confirmed the order and consequently, the
appeal is dismissed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for respondents. I have given
my anxious consideration to the material on record.
4. Respondent No.2 after enquiry has imposed
penalty thereby denying one increment and consequently,
has ordered for recovery of Rs.6,918/- on the ground that
petitioner who was transferred from Rural Sub-Division to
Major Work division, Tumakuru, on 13.11.2018 failed to
intimate the decision rendered by the District Court in
Misc.No.38/2014 wherein the petition of one Rangaiah
seeking compensation was allowed in part thereby
directing the respondents-authorities to pay total
compensation of Rs.1,84,000/-. On examination of the
order passed by respondent No.2 as well as the order
NC: 2024:KHC:9302
passed by the appellate authority, this Court is of the view
that petitioner herein is also found to be negligent in not
reporting the disposal of the petition and awarding of
compensation. The finding recorded by respondent No.2
and consequent penalty imposed on the petitioner runs
contrary to the explanation offered by the petitioner.
Interestingly, respondent No.2-authority has culled out
the details of the Assistant Executive Engineers who were
posted at Major Work Division, from 22.9.2010 till
21.1.2019. When the proceedings were pending before
the District Judge in Misc.No.38/2014, it is not in dispute
that one Shivanagendra was in-charge of the Major Work
Division, Tumakuru and he has worked from 22.9.2010 to
5.10.2016. The said Shivanagendra was arrayed as
Respondent No.3 in Misc.Petition No.38/2014 in the
capacity of Assistant Executive Engineer(Electrical). When
this petition was allowed vide judgment dated 30.1.2016,
the said Shivanagendra was infact in-charge of the Major
Work Division, Tumakuru. He was transferred on
5.10.2016 and in his place one Dhanyakumar.H.C,
NC: 2024:KHC:9302
assumed charge and he was working till 17.09.2018.
When the judgment was rendered, Shivanagendra was still
discharging his duties as Assistant Executive Engineer.
5. If these significant details are looked into, then
this Court would find that petitioner assumed charge only
on 21.1.2019 though he was transferred on 30.11.2019.
No negligence can be attributed towards the petitioner
herein. On the contrary, the records reveal that it is the
petitioner, who after examining the records has intimated
his superiors by sending two communications. From
22.9.2010 till petitioner took charge on 21.1.2019 in all
four Assistant Executive Engineers were found to be
serving at the post to which the petitioner was transferred.
These significant details are strangely ignored by
respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.1-Appellate
Authority. If Shivanagendra was aware of the pendency of
the proceedings and the judgment was rendered when he
was still holding charge of Major Work Division, Tumakuru,
no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:9302
Therefore, the penalty of withholding of one increment and
proportionate recovery from the petitioner is unjustified
and unreasonable. If at all, negligence can be attributed,
it could be only against the said Shivanagendra and
Dhanyakumar.H.C. It is brought to the notice of this Court
that the department has initiated enquiry against these
two Engineers and penalty is imposed and proportionate
amount is recovered. On meticulous examination of the
records, this Court is of the view that there is complete
laxness insofar as Shivanagendra is concerned. Even
Dhanyakumar.H.C., who was later posted on 10.10.2016
is also found to be negligent. Therefore, respondent No.2
without taking cognizance of these significant details has
imposed penalty on petitioner though the material on
record reveals that it is the petitioner who has brought to
the notice of the superiors in regard to grant of
compensation. The penalty imposed by respondent No.2
and the order passed by the appellate authority concurring
with the penalty imposed by respondent No.2 are not
sustainable. There are no materials to substantiate that
NC: 2024:KHC:9302
petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty. Even if there is
delay at the hands of the petitioner in reporting to the
superiors immediately after taking charge on 21.1.2019, a
lenient view was warranted. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the penalty imposed requires interference at the
hands of this Court.
6. In evaluating the circumstances presented, it is
essential to consider the timeline and responsibilities of
concerned officers. The case was decided in 2016 prior to
petitioner's tenure and it is evident that neither previous
engineer nor the subsequent incumbent communicated the
order awarding compensation to the owner of agriculture
land. The petitioner cannot reasonably be held culpable for
failing to inform superiors of a matter that predates his
tenure. The failure of multiple individuals over the course
of several years to notify their superiors of the
compensation decree cannot be inferred as dereliction of
duty insofar as petitioner is concerned. The petitioner's
action in bringing the compensation decree to the
NC: 2024:KHC:9302
attention of the department demonstrates diligence and
accountability rather than negligence or misconduct.
7. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of punishment bearing
No.PÀ«¥À椤/©52/©94/24732/2021-22/¹DATED 13/12/2022
passed by respondent No.2 which is confirmed in
an appeal bearing No. PÀ«¥À椤/©52/ ©94/ 24732/2021-
22/¹ dated 25.8.2023 by respondent No.1 are
hereby quashed. Consequently, the endorsement
issued by respondent No.3 dated 29.11.2023 vide
Annexure-N is also quashed.
(iii) If at all, respondent No.2 intends to recover
the amount, the same shall be recovered only
from the earlier Assistant Executive Engineers i.e.
Shivanagendra and Dhanyakumar.H.C.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ALB
