Karnataka High Court
The National Seeds Corporation Ltd vs Sri. K.V. Rama Reddy on 28 May, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17824-DB
WA No. 8281 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 8281 OF 2012 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
1. THE NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD.
(A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BEEJA BHAWAN, PUSA COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI-110 012.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
BEEJA BHAWAN, PUSA COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI-110 012.
3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN)
THE NATIONAL SEEDS,CORPORATION LTD.,
BEEJA BHAWAN, PUSA COMPLEX,
Digitally signed NEW DELHI-110 012.
by SHARADA ...APPELLANTS
VANI B
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI.,ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. SRI. K.V. RAMA REDDY
S/O LATE SRI.VENKATASWAMY,
NOW AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS ASSISTANT GRADE-II
NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD,,
R/AT NO.68,PANTHARAPALYA, NAYANDAHALLI,
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 039.
NOW R/AT NO.6, KOTE STREET,
OPPOSITE SRI.VENKATESWARA STREET,
KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR POST,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17824-DB
WA No. 8281 of 2012
BANGALORE-560 092.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(A) SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O LATE K.V. RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
1(B) SMT. BIYAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,
1(C) SRI. R. PRATAP REDDY,
S/O LATE K.V. RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
1(D) SRI. R. NAGENDRA REDDY,
S/O LATE K.V. RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
1(E) SMT. VANITHA,
D/O LATE K.V. RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING T NO.6, KOTE STREET,
OPPOSITE SRI. VENKATESHWARA STREET
KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARANAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 92.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M SUBRAMANYA BHAT.,ADV., FOR PROPOSED R1(A,C
& D);
R1(E) SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;
V.C.O DATED 14.02.2023-THE APPEAL STANDS
DISMISSED AS AGAINST R1(B)(1))
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN WRIT PETITION NO.14522/2008 DATED 20/06/2012.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17824-DB
WA No. 8281 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This intra - Court Appeal seeks to call in question a
learned Single Judge's order dated 20.06.2012 whereby
Respondent - delinquent employee's W.P.No.14522/2008
(S-DIS) having been favoured, the order of penalty dated
20.11.2007 which has put an end to service by way of
dismissal has been quashed.
2. After service of notice, the Respondent -
employee having entered appearance through his counsel,
passed away and his LRs have been brought on record
vide order dated 14.02.2023. Learned advocate appearing
for the said LRs vehemently opposes the Appeal making
submission in justification of the impugned order and the
reasons on which it has been structured.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Appeal papers, we are inclined to
grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
NC: 2024:KHC:17824-DB
a) There is a wealth of material on record which
substantiates grant of abundant opportunity of
participation in the disciplinary proceedings. However, the
delinquent employee chose not to participate by making a
representation seeking deferment of the enquiry
proceedings on the ground that the Appellants' Civil
Appeal No.4035/2006 was pending before the Apex Court.
In fact, this Appeal came to be allowed and another Single
Judge's order entered in W.P.No.50793/2003 (L-RES)
whereby direction was issued for considering his
application for hiring lawyer's services in the disciplinary
enquiry, came to be set at naught. In the meanwhile, the
enquiry proceedings were completed and enquiry report
was submitted on 31.05.2007 holding the grave charges
as having been proved.
b) No material has been produced by the delinquent
employee before the disciplinary authority to discredit the
findings of enquiry report. Even before this Court too
nothing worth mentioning is put on record for faltering the
NC: 2024:KHC:17824-DB
penalty order of dismissal. The enquiry proceedings
having been conducted in accordance with the Service
Rules, which do not permit appearance of lawyers in
defence of the delinquent employee, no grievance can be
raised by the Respondent herein against penalty order.
That being the position, learned Single Judge is not
justified in setting at naught the said dismissal and also
order of Appellate Authority dated 08.07.2008 which had
affirmed the dismissal.
c) The vehement contention of learned counsel
appearing for the delinquent employee that there was
separate disciplinary proceeding against another
delinquent co-employee and that he has been only given
the penalty of reversion/demotion and therefore, on the
principle of parity, the dismissal order of his client is
unsustainable, does not merit acceptance. Firstly, it was
not a case of joint enquiry and therefore, the other
employee was not a co-delinquent to invoke the principle
of parity in the matter of punishment. The decision of the
NC: 2024:KHC:17824-DB
Apex Court in NARESH CHANDRA BHARADWAJ v.
BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS, (2019) 15 SCC 786
which was in a different fact matrix therefore cannot be
pressed into service in support of the said contention. It
was not a case of joint enquiry concerning a co-delinquent.
d) The last contention of the Respondent that the
punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh to be
sustained, does not much impress us. Mr. Jagadeesh
Mundaragi, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants is
right in telling us that once the finding of guilt is recorded,
it is for the disciplinary authority to hand the punishment
and therefore, Court cannot run a race of opinions in
matters like this. What punishment needs to be awarded
for a proven misconduct ordinarily lies in the exclusive
domain of employer subject to all just exceptions into
which argued case of the Respondent - employee is not
shown to fit into.
NC: 2024:KHC:17824-DB
In the above circumstances, this Appeal succeeds;
the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and
Respondent's W.P.No.14522/2008 is dismissed, costs
having been reluctantly made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
