Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.40294/2011 (S-DE)
BETWEEN:
MR. ANANDA KUMAR B S/O LATE BALA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.16/3, 3RD CROSS 2ND MAIN NANJAPPA LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE-560 097. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV.)
AND:
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE OUTER RING ROAD, NAGAVARA BANGALORE-560 045.
THE DIRECTOR (BANGALORE COMPLEX) BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED JALAHALLI BANGALORE-560 013. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADV.)
2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 13.07.2011 VIDE ANNX-H AND FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DISMISSING PETITIONER FROM SERVICE AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioner, a dismissed employee of Bharat Electronics Limited (for short “BEL”) is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.BCE204730/COMPS & EM/HR
dated 13.07.2011 (Annexure-H) by which, the petitioner is dismissed from service and also to quash the appellate order bearing No.17556/204730/HOA dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure-K) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into services of the Company with all other consequential benefits.
3 2. Heard Sri.Harikrishna S Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Deputy Manager in the respondent-BEL. The petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 04.11.2010 alleging lapses while discharging the project of repair and installation of solar traffic signals. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet on 06.11.2010 (Annexure-B). Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent-BEL appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondent-BEL conducted enquiry in terms of the BEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules (for short ‘CDA Rules’) and submitted his report on 07.05.2011 as per Annexure-C holding the charges as proved against the petitioner. The respondent issued second show-cause notice dated 02.06.2011 enclosing
4 a copy of the report of the enquiry, to which, the petitioner submitted his reply on 17.06.2011. The respondent-BEL by its final order dated 13.07.2011 imposed punishment of dismissal on the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director. The Appellate Authority, by its order dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure-K) dismissed the appeal confirming the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal as well as the order of Appellate Authority confirming the order of dismissal, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Harikrishna S Holla submits that the petitioner is before this Court urging two grounds to set aside the impugned orders. The first ground being that the petitioner being Deputy Manager, the General Manager has no jurisdiction to impose punishment of dismissal. Inviting attention of this Court to CDA Rules, he submits that Disciplinary Authority in respect of petitioner
5 was Functional Director and Appellate Authority was Chairman and Managing Director. The petitioner being Grade-E4, Functional Director was the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal passed by the General Manager is wholly without jurisdiction and opposed to CDA Rules.
Nextly, learned counsel Sri.Harikrishna Holla contends that no enquiry could have been initiated against the petitioner based on anonymous complaint. In that regard, learned counsel refers to the Circular dated 07.03.2016 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission and also learned counsel would rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1999)1 SCC 16 in the case of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL V/S V.K.AGARWAL AND ANOTHER to contend that no enquiry could be initiated based on the anonymous and pseudonymous letters. Further, the learned counsel would submit that anonymous or pseudonymous letter which was the basis to initiate enquiry was not supplied
6 nor made available to the petitioner. In the absence of supply of copy of anonymous and pseudonymous letters, the enquiry initiated vitiates in law and would be violative of principles of natural justice. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
Per contra, learned counsel Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda appearing for respondent-BEL submits that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the Functional Director is the Disciplinary Authority, whereas, the final order of punishment dated 13.07.2011 was passed by the Director. As is clear from paragraph 2 of the impugned order at Annexure-H, learned counsel submits that the General Manager has signed the impugned order which is only communication of the decision of the Director. Thus, he submits that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the General Manager who has passed the impugned order has no jurisdiction.
7 7. With regard to the contention of initiating enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of anonymous or pseudonymous letters, learned counsel would submit that the enquiry was not initiated on the basis of anonymous complaint or letter. He points out to the charge memo to state that the enquiry was initiated solely based on the statement of the petitioner wherein the petitioner has stated that there was severe customer pressure to complete new STS at KSRTC Junction and repair of STS at Bunts Hostel junction in Mangalore. Further he submits that the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not bar initiation of enquiry on the basis of anonymous letters. But, while initiating enquiry on the basis of anonymous or pseudonymous letters, copy of such anonymous letters shall have to be furnished to the concerned official. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers along with statement
8 of objections, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, for the following reasons:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged two grounds. One is that the General Manager who has communicated the final order of dismissal dated 13.07.2011 has no jurisdiction, since, as per CDA Rules, the Functional Director is the Disciplinary Authority. The said contention has no merit. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.07.2011 makes it clear that the Director, on going through the entire enquiry records passed the order and the said order was communicated by the General Manager. The General Manager who has signed the order was only a Communicator and he has not taken any decision. The decision to impose punishment of dismissal was taken by the Director who was the Disciplinary Authority insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
9 10. On going through the CDA Rules of the BEL, it is clear that major penalty of discharge, removal from service and dismissal could be imposed by the Functional Director or Chairman and Managing Director depending on the grade of official. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he was E-IV Grade Officer and Disciplinary Authority insofar as E-IV Officers is Functional Director. The decision of imposing punishment of dismissal taken by the Director is in accordance with law and inconsonance with the CDA Rules.
The other contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry could be initiated on the basis of anonymous or pseudonymous complaints. A perusal of charge sheet dated 04.11.2010 (Annexure-A) it would not indicate or it would not remotely suggest that the charge sheet is issued on the basis of anonymous and pseudonymous letters as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. The enquiry is initiated based on the statement made by the petitioner before the Senior DGM
10 (Standards) on 05.10.2010. There is no material to suggest in the charge sheet that the enquiry was initiated on the basis of anonymous letters. Moreover, in the reply to the charge sheet also the petitioner has not taken any defense with regard to initiation of enquiry on the basis of anonymous or pseudonymous letters. The petitioner was also provided opportunity to reply in pursuance of the second show-cause notice. In the reply to second show-cause notice also, the petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to alleged initiation of enquiry on the basis of anonymous complaints. Thus, the petitioner has failed to establish that the enquiry was initiated on anonymous letter and at this stage, after completion of enquiry and on imposition of punishment, it is not open for the petitioner to raise such a ground. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) relied upon by the petitioner at paragraph 22 makes it clear, on consideration of circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commission to initiate enquiry on the basis of anonymous complaints, the concerned should obtain specific orders from the Head of the
11 Department and copy of such complaint shall be made available to the officer concerned for his comments. Only thereafter, further action could be taken. In the case on hand, as the enquiry is not initiated on anonymous complaint, the decision referred to above and circular would have no application.
For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mpk/-* CT:bms