SRI.AJIT M. PUJERI, vs. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR W.P. Nos.107941 – 107949/2016 (S – DIS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.AJIT M. PUJERI S/O.MAYAPPA S. PUJERI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.88, KANBARGI ROAD RAMATHIRTHA NAGAR BELAGAVI – 590 016 2. SURESH KALLAPPA KAMBLE S/O.KALLAPPA KAMBLE AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.42, R.S.NO.34/1 MARKANDEYA NAGAR MARKET YARD BELAGAVI – 590 010 3. BHIMAPPA L. GODALKUNDARGI S/O.LENKAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.1903 NEAR UDAYA SCHOOL RAMATHERTHA NAGAR BELAGAVI – 590 016 4. NATHAJI P PATIL S/O.PEERAJI KALAPPA PATIL

: 2 : AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.2882, KANGARAHALLI B.K BELAGAVI TALUK BELAGAVI – 560 010 5. SUBHASH MALLAPPA HALLOLLI S/O.MALLAPPA HALLOLLI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.417, CTS NO.647 H.D.KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT BOXITE ROAD, BELAGAVI – 590 010 6. RAJU HALINGALI S/O.BHUPAL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.C-1, KPTCL QUARTERS NEHRU NAGAR BELAGAVI – 590 010 7. MALIKARJUN SANGANNA REDIHAL S/O.SAGANNA REDIHAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT CCB24, KPTCL QUARTERS NEHRU NAGAR BELAGAVI – 590 010 8. IRAPPA MAHADEV PATTAR S/O.MAHADEV PATTAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.982, KUMBAR ONI NEAR BELLADA BHAGEWADI BANK GATAPRABHA DHUPADAL GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI – 591 306 9. MALLASARJA SHIVARAI SHAHAPURKAR S/O.SHIVARAJ SHAHAPURKAR

: 3 : AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT.LAKSHMIGALLI, 1ST CROSS KAKATHI, BELAGAVI – 591 113 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.R.S.RAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL AND SRI.B.S.KAMATE, ADV. FOR R1 & R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEXURES-Z1 TO Z9 FROM THE FILE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE EVEN DATE:30.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURES-Z1 TO Z9 RESPECTIVELY. RESERVED ON 19.11.2016 PRONOUNCED ON 25.11.2016

: 4 : THESE PETITIONS COMING ON THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Though these writ petitions are listed for consideration of I.A.2/2016 for vacating the interim order of stay, with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, same are taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioners are office-bearers of Employees’ Association of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. They have called in question orders dated 30.8.2016, placing them under suspension as per Annexures-Z1 to Z9 and prayed for a writ of certiorari and to quash them. 3. Heard Shri R.S.Ravi, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri B.S.Kamate, advocates for the respondents.

: 5 : 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, one B.V.Sindhu, working as Assistant Engineer in HESCOM, submitted a complaint to the Managing Director of HESCOM, alleging sexual harassment by one T.B. Majjagi, working as Executive Engineer, HESCOM. Subsequently, on 19.11.2014, she lodged a complaint against the said T.B.Majjagi and two other officials namely, M.T.Takkalki (now deceased and working as store keeper at the material point of time) and Maruthi Doddamani working as Lineman in Crime No.286/2014 with Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 341, 504, 506, 109 r/w 34 IPC. The said officials were arrested. After investigation, the police filed a ‘B’ final report. Feeling aggrieved, complainant Sindhu challenged the said ‘B’ Report in Crl.R.P.No.54/2016 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belgavi. On 13.5.2016, she filed an affidavit dated 10.5.2016 with a prayer to withdraw the

: 6 : revision petition. The said prayer was granted and the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 5. First respondent-Corporation issued notices dated 25.6.2016 to the petitioners herein stating that they had instigated B.V. Sindhu to file complaint against T.B.Majjagi and others and called upon them to show-cause as to why disciplinary action could not be initiated under Rule 33 of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Employees’ Services (Conduct) Regulations-1988. 6. Petitioners submitted their respective replies denying the allegations contained in the show-cause notices and requested the management to drop further action. Subsequently, by impugned orders dated 30.8.2016, first respondent-Corporation has placed petitioners under suspension, reserving liberty to initiate departmental enquiry. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, petitioners have filed these petitions.

: 7 : 7. Shri R.S.Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned orders, made following submissions: i) that the orders placing petitioners under suspension suffer from legal malice, because the impugned orders have been passed in order to suppress the voice of Employees’ Association expressing solidarity with a co-employee who was subjected to harassment; ii) that the chronological events show that the alleged incident had taken place on 13.11.2014 and association was in no way concerned till they were informed as per Annexure-D followed by Annexure-E dated 22.11.2014; iii) that the Management has misconstrued the facts and arrived at an incorrect conclusion that the petitioners had instigated the said B.V.Sindhu to file complaint against T.B.Majjagi and others; iv) that the respondents-Management has incorrectly placed reliance on electronic and print media

: 8 : reports and come to an incorrect conclusion that the petitioners have instigated said B.V.Sindhu; v) that other sequence of events such as date of marriage of B.V.Sindhu, suspension of her husband, the date of filing of her affidavit and the date of revocation of suspension of her husband indicate that B.V.Sindhu withdrew the proceedings before the Revisional Court by filing an affidavit due to some pressure; and 8. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following rulings: 1) (1994) 4 SCC 126 in the case of STATE OF ORISSA through its Principal Secretary, Home Department vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty; 2) (2010) 9 SCC 437 in the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others; 3) (2013) 16 SCC 147 in the case of Union of India and another v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal.

: 9 : 9. Per contra, Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made following submissions: i) that by her complaint dated 14.11.2014 to the Managing Director, HESCOM and complaint dated 19.11.2014 to the Malamaruthi Police Station, B.V.Sindhu levelled serious allegations of sexual harassment against T.B. Majjagi, an honest officer working as an Executive Engineer with unblemished track record and two other officials. She subsequently abandoned the complaint by withdrawing the revision petition filed by her before the Sessions Court. However, the false complaint has resulted in death of one of the officials namely, Takkalaki, who suffered an heart attack unable to bear the ignominy; ii) B.V.Sindhu in her affidavit has categorically stated that she had filed the complaint

: 10 : alleging sexual harassment by T.B.Majjagi and two others at the instance of the petitioners to ensure that T.B.Majjagi was transferred to some other division. Her statement on oath is a part of the record in the Sessions Court; iii) Other material on record, particularly both electronic and print media reports clearly show that petitioners were actively involved in instigating B.V.Sindhu to file false complaints; iv) the acts on the part of petitioners amount to misconduct under the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Employees’ Services (Conduct) Regulations- 1988. Therefore, it has become imperative for the respondents-Management to conduct an enquiry; v) A Committee consisting of three senior officers of rank of a Chief Engineer, a

: 11 : Superintendent Engineer and an Assistant Executive Engineer constituted to inquire in the allegations has submitted a report dated 4.6.2015 and held that the allegations leveled are false; vi) the Management has issued show-cause notices to the petitioners and their replies were not found satisfactory. Keeping in view the gravity of situation in mind, petitioners have been placed under suspension; vii) it is settled in law that suspension is not a punishment and further in the instant case under Regulation 18(1)(d) of the KEB Employees’ Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal Regulations, 1987, an order of suspension is appealable. 10. Shri Ashok Haranahalli placed reliance on an unreported order dated 15.4.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.5831/2010 (T.Bhaskar vs. Chamundeshwari Electric Supply Company and others) to contend that the

: 12 : impugned orders are appealable, and petitioners have not exhausted the said alternative remedy. He further submitted that the Management has proposed to issue Articles of Charges and hold a proper domestic enquiry. With the above submissions, he prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. 11. Incontrovertible facts of this case are that the said B.V.Sindhu lodged complaints against T.B.Majjagi and two others with the Management and also the police complaining of sexual harassment. Police, after investigation, filed a ‘B’ report.

Complainant, B.V.Sindhu challenged the same in the Revision Petition before the Sessions Court, Belagavi. Subsequently, she withdrew the same by filing an affidavit dated 10.5.2016. A three member Committee consisting of senior lady officers has held that the allegation leveled was false.

: 13 : 12. B.V.Sindhu in her affidavit dated 10.5.2016 filed before the Sessions Court has stated that she had caused grave injustice to T.B.Majjagi by filing a false complaint at the instance of the petitioners herein. Pursuant to her complaint, the three officials were arrested. One of them namely, M.T.Takkalki passed away after suffering heart attack. It is indeed unfortunate that the lady who is working as an Assistant Engineer has acted in such lackadaisical and irresponsible manner. Her complaint to the police and the regret expressed in the affidavit are obverse to each other. Her acts and omissions have spoken too dearly on the officials against whom she had complained. 13. The impugned orders of suspension are appealable under Regulation 18(1)(d) of

KEB Employees’ Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal Regulations, 1987. 14. While replying to the submissions of Shri Ashok Haranahalli, it was argued by

: 14 : Shri R.S.Ravi that the impugned orders have been passed by the Director of the respondents-Board and the same are not appealable. It was countered and asserted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that there lies an appeal against the impugned orders. His submission is placed on record. 15. In similar circumstances, this Court in the case of T.Bhaskar supra, has held as follows: “6. It is not in dispute that the service conditions of the petitioner is governed by regulation.

The impugned order of suspension is passed under Regulation 8 of the Regulations. As per Regulation 18, an appeal is provided to the appellate authority against the impugned order of suspension. The petitioner without exhausting the remedy of appeal is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, writ petition is required to be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the remedy of appeal.”

: 15 : 16. Further, it may be profitable to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 has held as follows: “15. …………… High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” (emphasis is by me) 17. In the circumstances, in my considered view, these writ petitions do not merit any consideration for want of exhaustion of alternative remedy by way of appeal. Resultantly, they fail and are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

: 16 : In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, I.A.2/2016 for vacating stay stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE YN.