Karnataka High Court
The Chairman And Managing Director vs Sri. K.S. Krishnan on 26 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.591 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.
CORPORATE OFFICE:
15/1, CUBBON ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
RERPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDTIONAL GENERAL MANAGER-HR
SRI. SUJIT BHATTACHARYA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K.S. KRISHNAN
S/O LATE SRI. K. SESHAN
AGED 62 YEARS
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
ANAGHA F-20, VISTHARA ENCLAVE
VILANGUDI, PARAVAI MADURAI
TAMIL NADU-625 402
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
S-HIG-C1/4
KHB APARTMENT
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENT
-
2
(BY SRI. RAGHUNATHAN V.R., ADVOCATE A/W.
SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL,
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED
14.03.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No.20555/2022 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/respondent
aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.20555/2022 (S-
RES).
2. We have heard Shri. Syed Kashif Ali, learned
counsel for Shri. Pradeep. S. Sawarkar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Shri. Raghunathan V.R,
learned counsel along with Shri. Rudrappa. P, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
-
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that the Officers of Hindustan Aeronautics
Limited ('HAL' for short) are governed by HAL Conduct
Discipline and Appeal Rules ('CDA Rules' for short). The
respondent was appointed as Assistant Systems Audit
Officer at Bengaluru on 24.01.1986 and was due to attain
the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022. He later worked
in the Finance Department and on 27.10.2021, he was
transferred to Lucknow as General Manager (Finance). It
was alleged that he had indulged in certain acts of omission
and commissions in sending pseudonymous emails to
Government Authorities making baseless allegations about
the policy decision taken by the Board of Directors to malign
its reputation. CD's containing adult sexual content was
seized from his official vehicle on 01.10.2021.
4. The Managing Director issued Charge Sheet dated
22.11.2021 under Rules 4 and 5 of the CDA Rules. The
respondent denied the allegations in his reply dated
15.12.2021. An enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry
Officer during which the respondent cross-examined
-
witnesses but did not adduce any defence evidence. The
Enquiry Officer on 27.05.2022 found that all the three
charges leveled in the Charge Sheet were proved.
Considering the gravity of misconduct, the Board of
Directors on recommendation of the Management
Committee on 11.07.2022 imposed punishment of dismissal
from service with effect from 31.05.2022 - the date of his
superannuation and the same was communicated to the
respondent on 15.07.2022.
5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the
respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Authority - Board of Directors under Rule 14 which was
rejected on 22.11.2022. In the meantime, on 12.10.2022
respondent filed Writ Petition No.20555/2022 seeking
quashing of the dismissal order, restoration of post-
retirement medical and pension coverage and refund of
amounts recovered from his terminal benefits. The appellant
filed his statement of objections justifying its action pointing
out that the enquiry has been held in accordance with the
procedure under the Rules.
-
6. The learned Single Judge observed that even
assuming the e-mails were sent by the petitioner, such acts
could not constitute misconduct under Rule 5(xii) of the CDA
Rules and lodging complaints about maladministration to the
Government, which owns the Company, cannot be treated
as misconduct. If a representation does not relate to any
grievance which is personal to the employee, the question of
applying the said rule and terming it as misconduct would
not arise. A grievance petition can only be personal, while a
complaint regarding maladministration can never amount to
grievance. It was also observed that the CD's found in the
boot of a car hired for the petitioner's official use, no
presumption could be drawn that they belonged to the
petitioner. Considering the fact that the recommendation for
dismissal was made when the complaints were clearly
against their own conduct, the learned Single Judge came to
the conclusion that the entire proceedings were vitiated by
blatant bias. It was also observed that the allegations
neither affected the discharge of the petitioner's duties nor
caused any loss to HAL and the punishment of dismissal,
-
after the petitioner had already attained superannuation was
disproportionate. The fact that the extreme punishment of
dismissal was imposed on the petitioner is not only shocking
but also indicated an absolute sense of vindictiveness on the
part of the Board. The Writ Petition was allowed and the
dismissal order dated 15.07.2022, the enquiry report dated
27.05.2022 and its affirmation in the appeal was set aside.
The learned Single Judge directed the respondent - HAL to
restore all service benefits with interest at 6% per annum
and to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs for the unacceptable
harassment caused to the petitioner.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that the learned Single Judge erred in
holding that the allegations in the Charge Sheet did not
constitute misconduct under Rules 4 and 5 of the CDA Rules.
No such plea was raised by the respondent in the in the writ
petition. The allegations relate to sending unsubstantiated
false complaints against Company policy to the Cabinet
Secretary and carrying CDs with sexual content in the
-
official car. Both acts fall under the scope of misconduct
under the CDA Rules.
8. The respondent denied the charges claiming his
email account was hacked. However, the enquiry established
that the emails were sent by the respondent. Once proved,
the burden shifted to the respondent to justify the
allegations, which he failed to do. No evidence was produced
to substantiate hacking or to claim protection as a whistle-
blower. The learned Single Judge's finding that the
respondent should be treated as a whistle-blower is
erroneous, as no such plea was taken and HAL had a specific
whistle-blower policy which was not invoked by the
respondent. The finding of the learned Single Judge that an
employee has a right to complain against maladministration
to the Government and that such a conduct cannot be
constructed as misconduct for taking disciplinary action
against the employee is contrary to the rules and conduct
expected of an employee.
9. With regard to the seizure of CDs, the learned
Single Judge wrongly held that the charge was unproved
-
because the driver was not examined. Recovery of the CDs
was admitted and the burden was on the respondent to
explain their presence.
10. As per CDA Rules, the Management Committee is
the disciplinary authority for Grade-IX and X officers and its
decision was further approved by the Board of Directors.
Being the disciplinary authority, it is legally permissible for
the management committee to order for enquiry, consider
the report of the Enquiry officer. Upon acceptance of the
enquiry report, it is also open to the disciplinary authority to
proceed with the imposition of punishment. No allegation of
bias was pleaded by the respondent and the finding of the
learned Single Judge in this regard is misconceived.
11. The punishment imposed was based on the
gravity of proved charges and cannot be termed vindictive
or shocking. The scope of interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is limited and the learned Single
Judge exceeded such jurisdiction by re-appreciating
evidence and substituting his own conclusions. The
allegations contained in the charge sheet have been duly
-
held to be proved in a properly constituted enquiry.
Initiating disciplinary action as per Rules when an allegation,
which may amount to misconduct is reported against the
delinquent, can never be termed as harassment. The finding
thereon or the subsequent imposition of punishment by the
Competent Authority would not classify to be termed as
harassment.
12. In support of the contention that the Court
cannot re-appreciate evidence by interfering under Article
226 of the Constitution of India has relied on the decisions
of the Apex Court in the cases of B.C Chaturvedi v. Union
of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749;
Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran reported
in (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Deputy General Manager
(Appellate Authority) and Others reported in (2021) 2
SCC 612 - where it was held that the High Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 266 and 227 of the
Constitution, cannot function as a second appellate authority
in disciplinary proceedings. The Court shall not re-appreciate
evidence, go into adequacy or reliability of the evidence and
-
correct the factual error, however grave it may appear.
Interference with the punishment imposed is limited and
permissible only if it shocks the conscience of the Court.
Once the disciplinary authority has accepted the enquiry
report and the Central Administrative Tribunal has upheld it,
the High Court has no scope to re-examine the evidence or
substitute its own view.
13. The learned counsel has also relied on the
following decisions in:-
M.H. Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small
Industries Development Corporation reported in (1998)
3 SCC 732- it was held that making public statements by
an employee against the head of the organization on a
political issue amounted to lowering the prestige of the
organization and the employer was entitled to take
disciplinary action as per the rules.
Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman and Disciplinary
Authority and Others reported in (1997) 4 SCC 565- The
acts and conduct of employees working in public offices
should be in discharge of that constitutional objective and if
-
they derelict in the performance of their duty, it impinges
upon the enforcement of the constitutional philosophy,
objective and the goals under the rule of law. Disciplinary
measures should, therefore aim to eradicate the corrupt
proclivity of conduct on the part of the employees/officers in
the public offices.
Lalit Kumar Modi v. Board of Control for Cricket in
India and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 106- mere
participation of members in meeting forming prima facie
opinion to initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot lead to
interference of institutional bias against them nor is it
desirable to appoint outsiders to hold disciplinary
proceedings on such ground for interference. There must
exist a real danger of bias. Though such domestic inquiries
have undoubtedly to be fair, said principle cannot be
extended to form a disciplinary committee by outsiders.
14. Further, the learned counsel relied on the
following decisions in:-
• State of U.P v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and
Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 276;
-
• H.V. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Financial
Corporation and Others reported in (2008) 7 SCC
639;
• State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K.Sharma
reported in (1996)3 SCC 364; and
• Haryana Financial Corporation and Another v.
Kailash Chandra Ahuja reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31.
15. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent that the enquiry officer conducted
proceedings in a manner that denied the respondent a
reasonable opportunity, to substantiate his defense.
Inadequacy of time to prepare for cross- examination, the
reliance placed on, incomplete, anonymous emails forwarded
by the Ministry vitiated the proceedings. Further, the
management witnesses failed to depose, instead submitted
pre-printed statements and the enquiry officer's findings
declaring charges proved did not reflect the realities of the
case. The respondent emphasizes that the onus of proving
charges lies with the management, not the employee and
the enquiry was fundamentally flawed.
-
16. HAL being a Public Sector Undertaking failed to
follow the Central Vigilance Commission ('CVC' for short)
guidelines which clearly state that anonymous complaints
should not be acted upon. HAL did not clarify before the
learned Single Judge or this Court whether it responded to
the Ministry of Defence's queries about the anonymous
emails, nor did it attempt to identify who had accessed the
respondent's IP address. Further, HAL, ignored the
jurisdictional police's advice to refer the matter to a Court,
refused to share CCTV coverage of the parking area where
the official car was parked and failed to examine key
witnesses such as the driver of the car in which the alleged
CDs were recovered. The respondent insists these CDs were
planted by the Management, pointing to the absence of
CCTV evidence.
17. It is further contended that the appellant's
attempt to portray him as a whistle-blower is misleading. At
no stage did the respondent claim such status and the
failure to label himself as such cannot weaken his legitimate
defense. Every citizen has the right to complain against
-
wrongdoing and making allegations about maladministration
or appointment of directors and the same cannot amount to
misconduct. The onus to prove misconduct lay entirely with
HAL yet crucial evidence was withheld and the proceedings
were biased. The learned Single Judge recognized these
glaring gaps and passed a well reasoned judgment. The
Management's continued attempt to tarnish the respondent's
image even after retirement reflects malice and bias, which
the learned Single Judge rightly rejected.
18. We have considered the contentions advanced.
The writ petition had been filed by the respondent herein
challenging Annexure 'F' order dated 15.07.2022, by which
the petitioner's services were terminated. The writ petitioner
had specifically challenged the manner of the conduct of the
enquiry as also the findings of guilt in the enquiry report on
the ground that the proceedings were in utter violation of
the principles of natural justice and were conducted with the
pre-meditated intention of inflicting punishment on him. The
detailed objections were placed on record by the respondent
in the writ petition. The contentions raised on either side
-
were considered by the learned Single Judge. The decisions
relied on by the learned counsel by the appellant herein,
with regard to the limitations on the power of judicial review
were also specifically considered by the learned Single
Judge. The learned Single Judge found that the provisions
relied on by the appellant, that is, sub-clause (xii) and (xiii)
of Rule 5 of CDA Rules with regard to making
representations or grievance petitions to Government
Members of Board etc, were not applicable to the facts
available in the instant case. The circulars issued by the
Central Government and the CVC with regard to submission
of complaints as a whistle blower and the provisions of the
Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011 were also taken into
account. After a full examination of the pleadings and the
materials on record including the enquiry report, the learned
Single Judge came to a conclusion on fact that the
disciplinary proceedings had been initiated only as a means
of retaliation as against the writ petitioner and that the
entire proceedings were vitiated by non-compliance with the
principles of natural justice and by clear institutional-bias.
-
19. Having considered the contentions urged by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and having
given our anxious consideration to the decisions on the
point, we are of the opinion that the contention of the
appellant that the Constitutional Courts should not attempt
an exercise of re-appreciation of the evidence adduced in
disciplinary proceedings and should not act as appellate
authorities have no application in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case. The learned Single Judge
has considered the procedural lapses and the modest of
conduct of the enquiry and has come to a definite conclusion
that the findings in the enquiry report that the allegations
raised against the writ petitioner's stand prove were not
supported by any sustainable evidence. It was also found
that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not
proved in the enquiry. It is in the above circumstances that
the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that
the order of dismissal was unsustainable.
20. In the instant case, the allegation against the
petitioner was specifically that he had raised specific
-
allegations against the directors and higher officials of the
employer. It was after considering the factual aspects of the
matter that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion
that the very initiation of the proceedings against the
petitioner was vitiated. In such a case, we are clearly of the
opinion that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel
for the appellant would have no application.
21. We are of the opinion that the findings of the
learned Single Judge cannot be faulted in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, it is not a fit case for
interference in an intra-Court appeal. The writ appeal
therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
cp*
