[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The General Manager (H) vs Shri Madhavendra Singh on 25 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16854-DB
RP No. 869 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REVIEW PETITION NO. 869 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (H)
HELICOPTER DIVISION
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
VIMANAPURA POST
BENGALURU-560017.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
DESIGN COMPLEX
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
VIMANAPURA POST
BENGALURU-560017.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. PRADYUMNA L. NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
SHRI MADHAVENDRA SINGH
S/O SHRI RAGHAVENDRA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.9,
GURUSIDHI APARTMENT
GANGAPUR ROAD, MAHARASHTRA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. L. MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16854-DB
RP No. 869 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908 AND
ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS AND PASS AN ORDER FOR REVIEW OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 14 JUNE 2022 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.5678/2017
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
This review petition filed by the employer seeking
review of the judgment and order dated 14.06.2022
passed in Writ Appeal No.5678/2019 in Writ Petition
No.5373/2010. It appears that the appellant/respondent
herein was posted as the Deputy Manager in MIG Complex
of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited at Nasik. He was
transferred by an order dated 30.04.2001 and was
relieved of his duties at Nasik. The respondent sought
leave for the month of May, 2001 on medical grounds. He
NC: 2026:KHC:16854-DB
HC-KAR
sought extension of leave for another month. However, his
application was rejected and the period of absence was
treated to be unauthorised.
2. A departmental enquiry was initiated against
the respondent and he was served with charge sheet. A
penalty of dismissal from service was imposed pursuant to
an enquiry conducted ex-parte. The order was assailed in
a writ petition filed by the respondent which came to be
allowed by a Bench of this Court on 13.06.2006 and the
matter was remitted to the Enquiry Officer to conduct an
enquiry afresh.
3. The Disciplinary Authority, by an order of
13.01.2009, found the charges to be proved and imposed
the penalty of removal from services on the respondent.
Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a departmental
review petition which was dismissed.
4. The validity of the order dated 13.01.2009 was
challenged in the writ petition and the learned Single
NC: 2026:KHC:16854-DB
HC-KAR
Judge modified the punishment of removal from service to
compulsory retirement from service and directed the
employer to settle the terminal and pensionary benefits to
the respondent herein as if the respondent herein was
compulsorily retired. The order of the learned Single Judge
was challenged in the writ appeal mentioned aforesaid.
5. The Division Bench noted that the findings of
the learned Single Judge in favour of the respondent were
not under challenge. It was therefore held that after the
learned Single Judge having held that the review petitioner
having failed to adduce any evidence to prove the charges,
could not have substituted the penalty of removal from
service imposed on the respondent with that of
compulsory retirement. It was held that the learned Single
Judge was not justified in substituting the penalty imposed
by the Disciplinary Authority with the penalty of
compulsory retirement from the service without assigning
any reasons.
NC: 2026:KHC:16854-DB
HC-KAR
6. Accordingly, the judgment dated 09.08.2017
passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it inflicted
the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent
was set aside and it was held that the respondent is
entitled to all consequential benefits.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
8. The sole contention of learned counsel for the
employer herein is that once the Division Bench had held
that the penalty of compulsory retirement could not be
imposed on the respondent, the order of removal from
service imposed on the respondent stood revived.
Therefore, there was no reason to hold that the
respondent was entitled to all consequential benefits.
9. It is the case of the review petitioner herein
that the penalty imposed by the Competent Departmental
Authority of removal from service was made in terms of
NC: 2026:KHC:16854-DB
HC-KAR
Rule 6 of the HAL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules,
1984, which reads as follows:
"RULE-6
Punishments:
The following punishments may for
good and sufficient reasons be imposed
on officers by the Competent
Authorities empowered to impose such
punishments under these rules:
(i) Minor Penalties:
XXX
(ii) Major Penalties:
XXX
(i) Removal from service which
shall not be a disqualification for
future employment under the
Government or a Corporation/
Company owned or controlled by
the Government;"
10. In our opinion, the direction regarding
consequential benefits made by the Division Bench can
NC: 2026:KHC:16854-DB
HC-KAR
only mean that the respondent be paid all legitimate dues
that he may be entitled to, if any, consequent to his
removal from service under the service rules.
Subject to the aforesaid clarification, this review
petition is disposed of.
All pending IA's stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
