R. USHA PADMA W/O SRI. B.S. BASAVARAJU, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND K. SEETHARAM BHAT S/O SRI. MAHABALA BHAT, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 220 KV, R/S TL AND S.S. DIVISION, KPTCL Vs. GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN. AND HRD) KA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The petitions in WP 52602/2003 and WP 50362/2003 are considered together as the issues arising for consideration are identical.

(2.) IN that first of these petitions, the Petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer. The Petitioner had joined the services of the Respondent in the year 1991. The Petitioner claims to have discharged her services with blemish less record. However, it was alleged that the Chief Engineer -Electricity, Technical Audit and Quality Control had, by a communication dated 15.12.1999. addressed to the Secretary of the Respondent -Corporation suggested that disciplinary action may be initiated against the Petitioner and three others as there was an apparent violation of Clause 9 of the Electricity Supply Regulations in relation to providing power supply to a multi -storied building belonging 10 one Krishnappa of Ganganagar. The Chief Engineer had made such a recommendation on the inspection report of the engineers of the Technical Audit and Quality Control department. Pursuant to this, the Secretary of the Respondent -Corporation had ordered a joint departmental enquiry against the Petitioner and three others, as envisaged under the KEB Employees' (Classification, Discipline, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ' the 1987 Regulations' for brevity). The charges were to the effect that the Petitioner while working as an Assistant Engineer -Electrical in the technical section of the Respondent -Corporation had committed irregularities in providing power supply to the building belonging to one Krishnappa as aforesaid. It was specifically alleged that the Petitioner did not register the application submitted by the said consumer as required under Rule 9, though it was patent that the building in question consisted of four floors as per the building plan submitted. It was further alleged that the Petitioner had accepted the deposit amounts from the consumer and had issued a work order though there was no regular sanction of the power supply by the concerned superior. It was further alleged that the Petitioner did not collect the monthly security deposits under Low Tension 3 for a 2 H.P. Pump of the consumer. It is en that basis that the article of charges were framed and the Petitioner had submitted a reply as on 27.3.2007 and the allegations were denied. The Petitioner specifically contended that the allegations could not be sustained against the Petitioner as she could not be held responsible for the alleged loss occasioned in not collecting the required deposit from the consumer. The main allegation against the Petitioner being that she did not call for all the relevant records to ascertain the nature of the building as to whether it comes under the multi -storied category or not. Further, the Petitioner contended that she alone was not responsible for the servicing of the installation and sanctioning of the power to the building and the authority not being vested with the Petitioner, the allegations were baseless. The only responsibility entrusted with the Petitioner at the revenant period of time was the scrutiny of estimates and filing of field report for consideration by the higher authorities for further action. Without properly appreciating the defence set up by the Petitioner, an enquiry officer had been appointed by the disciplinary authority and the enquiry itself was ridden with irregularities insofar as the enquiry officer not having afforded sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to effectively participate and defend her case and to cross -examine the witnesses who were examined on behalf the management and the procedure also not having been made explicit to the Petitioner, the enquiry having been concluded and to the surprise of the Petitioner, her superior namely Shri Nagaiah, against whom also enquiry was initiated, stood exonerated and it is the Petitioner and two others who were found guilty of the charges while inexplicably Nagaiah was exonerated. The disciplinary authority after having accepted the report of the enquiry officer and also having pre -determined the penalty that was to be imposed on the Petitioner had proceeded to impose the extreme penalty of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that insofar as the imposition of penalty was concerned, that in terms of Official Memorandum dated 19.5.2003, issued by the Managing Director, the Company Secretary of the Corporation was placed in charge of the post of General Manager and it is that officer who has imposed the penalty of withholding of three annual increments falling due with cumulative effect by his order dated 26.5.2003, exercising the power of the first Respondent -disciplinary authority, which according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is not permissible in law. It is this which is urged as the primary contention in support of the grounds raised in the writ petition namely, that the third Respondent while acting as in -charge of the post of General Manger could not exercise the statutory power which could be exercised only by the officer named namely the General Manager. The third Respondent could at best discharge the routine day -to -day affairs attached to the post of General Manager and could not exercise statutory power which only a General Manager could exercise.