S. SURENDRA RAO, S/O. LATE SRI. T. SUBBA RAO WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECL) Vs. GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN. AND HRD), KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, DIRECTOR (P AND IT), KPTCL AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE COMPANY SECREARY KP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the Petitioner had joined the Karnataka Electricity Board (now known as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited) on 1.4.1976. It is the case of the Petitioner that disciplinary action was initiated against him and three others on the allegation that there was violation of Clause -9 of Electricity Supply Regulations in respect of providing power supply to a multistoried building belonging to one R. Krishnappa. The said recommendation had been made by the Chief Engineer based on the inspection report of the Engineers of Technical Audit and Quality Control. Pursuant to the same, the Secretary of the Company by his order dated 25.2.2000 ordered a joint departmental enquiry against the Petitioner and three others in terms of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Discipline, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations" for brevity) and articles of charge were issued alleging that the Petitioner had misconducted in discharge of his duties. The substance of the charge was that he had serviced a multistoried building under Clause 5 of Electricity Supply Regulations without insisting on two runs of the service of the main cable and without a panel board and thus, he was responsible for revenue loss to the Board. The Petitioner filed his reply to the same denying the charges levelled against him and he also claimed that there was no violation of the Regulations. However, the Board thought it fit to appoint a retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer. An enquiry having been conducted it was held by the Enquiry Officer that the charges were proved. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show -cause notice on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner and two others holding that the Enquiry Officer's report has found the charges proved against the Petitioner and it was proposed to impose penalty on the Petitioner and two others. However, by implication it was to be found that the charges as against one D. Nagaiah were held not proved. On the basis of the reply submitted by the Petitioner the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is a clear violation in imposing the penalty in variance with the tenor of the penalty that is prescribed and the penalty imposed on the Petitioner not being subject to any conditions as contemplated under the said Regulation, the imposition of penalty is illegal and it results in grave injury and loss to the Petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the petition be allowed on that ground alone.