The Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri H B Dastagir
2026 Latest Caselaw 420 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri H B Dastagir on 22 January, 2026

                                             -1-
                                                    NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB
                                                        WA No. 1716 of 2024


                 HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
                                          PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
                                            AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                            WRIT APPEAL NO. 1716 OF 2024 (S-R)


                 BETWEEN:

                 1.    THE KARNATAKA POWER
                       TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,
                       BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
                       CAUVERY BHAVAN
                       K.G.ROAD
                       BENGALURU - 560 009.
                       REPRESENTED BY
                       DIRECTOR (ADMIN. AND HR)
                       KPTCL,
                       CAUVERY BHVAN
Digitally
signed by              BENGALURU - 560 009.
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE
SUSHMA           2.    THE CHIEF ENGINEER (EL)
LAKSHMI
Location: High         MEGA WORKS
Court of
Karnataka              FPS COMPOUND
                       NR MOHALLA
                       MYSURU - 570 001.

                                                              ...APPELLANTS
                 (BY SRI. SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB
                                       WA No. 1716 of 2024


HC-KAR




AND:

1.   SRI. H.B. DASTAGIR
     S/O. SHEIK BUDEN SAB
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
     RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EL)
     KPTCL
     2ND CROSS, CM EXTENSION
     KYATHASANDRA
     TUMKUR - 517 204.

                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. N BYREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)


       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

13.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP

No. 51254/2017 (S-R) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE

SAID WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND

EQUITY.



       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                                -3-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB
                                           WA No. 1716 of 2024


HC-KAR




                    ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

1. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed impugning

the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P No.51254/2017.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the

Writ Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The Disciplinary Authority issued charge sheet dated

20.11.2001 to the petitioner for two article of charges,

which would read as under:

"(I)That the DO has received 6000 meter no. 2 ACSR Conductor from Tumkur Store during his incumbency of Store Officer of Gubbi Sub-Division and failed to account the same in the store ledger of Gubbi Store for having received the material under Invoice no. 6442 dated 21-1-1997 and he is responsible for misuse of the materials so drawn and thus, there is a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.61,770 to the corporation.

(II) The another charge against the-DO is regarding creation of false documents. It is alleged that the DO has admitted that he has taken 6000 meter of

NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB

HC-KAR

ACSR conductor in lorry no. CAA 6520 to Gubbi sub-division (Lingadevaru Lorry Driver) and has stated that AEE, Gubbi sub-division has acknowledged the receipt of the said conductor.

But, actually this conductor has not reached Gubbi sub-division and there is no entry in the numerical ledger and there is no signature of Sri. Lingadevaru Lorry Driver on the invoice. Therefore, it is alleged that the DO while working as AEE in Gubbi sub- division, has received the conductor through invoice no. 6442 dated 21-1-1997 after signing the Register has taken the said conductor through the Tipatur sub-division lorry no. CAA 6520, but the receipt given by the DO is not proper receipt since it does not bear any voucher number and this material was not taken at all to Gubbi Store account. Therefore, it is alleged that the DO has created a false document and has misappropriated the said materials."

4. The Enquiry Officer, who was appointed to enquire into

the article of charges, submitted the enquiry report,

recording a finding that the petitioner was not guilty of

the charges. However, the Enquiry Officer opined that the

petitioner was negligent while performing his duty. The

alleged negligence in performing the duty was not one of

the charges, for which the disciplinary inquiry was

NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB

HC-KAR

conducted against him. After submission of the enquiry

report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a final show

cause notice dated 07.04.2003 to the petitioner and after

considering his reply, passed an order on 18.11.2003

directing recovery of Rs.61,770/- from the salary of the

petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the

order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate

Authority i.e., the Director (Transmission), Karnataka

Power Transmission Corporation dismissed the appeal

vide order dated 16.03.2017.

5. The petitioner challenged the order of the Disciplinary

Authority, and the Appellate Authority in the W.P

No.51254/2017 before this Court.

6. It is not in dispute that the Disciplinary Authority did not

communicate the points of disagreement on findings of

the Enquiry Officer on two charges to the petitioner, and

no show cause notice was issued to him calling for his

reply to the points of disagreement. The petitioner was

not made aware of the points of disagreement of the

Disciplinary Authority. Without following the due

NC: 2026:KHC:3549-DB

HC-KAR

procedure, the final show cause notice dated 07.04.2003

was issued to the petitioner proposing to impose the

penalty for recovery of Rs.61,770/-.

7. The learned Single Judge considering this infraction of the

procedure prescribed in imposing penalty on the

petitioner, held that the procedure adopted by the

Disciplinary Authority was in violation of Regulation

11(A)(2) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees'

(Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal)

Regulations, 1987 (for short 'Regulations, 1987').

Therefore, the learned Single Judge has set aside the

order passed by the Disciplinary authority as well as the

Appellate Authority as the orders were passed in violation

of the Regulations, 1987.

8. We have considered the Regulations as well as the

impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We

do not find that the impugned order requires an

interference by this Court and therefore, we dismiss the

appeal.