R P KARIBASAPPANAVAR Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER ELEC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the then Karnataka Electricity Board, now known as Karnataka. Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short' the Corporation') for the, last over 30 years. He has been a Junior Engineer since 1994. During March, 1997, when he was discharging his duty as an in-charge Assistant Engineer (EI), he had furnished current transformer ratio (C.T. ratio) of R.R. No. TP-38/1 running in the mill of one Ganapathi Shetty of M/s. Mahaganapathi Rice Mill, Talaguppa as 50/5=K-10. It was found by calibration report of the Asst. Executive Engineer (Elec), M.T. Sub-Dvn, Shimoga that the C.T. ratio of the said installation is 75/5=K-15 as existing from the data of installation. According to the Corporation, it has sustained a pecuniary loss to an extent of Rs.82,893/- for the period between March 1997 to May 1998.

(2.) The Corporation issued a show cause notice as per Annexure A, dated 7.9.1998 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him as per the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal Regulations, 1987 (for short the' Regulations') for the aforesaid lapse and incurring revenue loss to the Corporation. The petitioner has sent a reply dated 12.9.1998 stating that the meter testing department of the Corporation, while calibrating the meters found the C.T. ratio as 50/5 instead of 75/5 and after sealing the tamper proof box, wrote with a chalk piece as 50/5 on the box. The petitioner as an incharge Asst. Engineer went to fix the lighting meter, noted the C.T. ratio as 50/5 as written by testing department and accordingly, reported to the Senior Asst. Revenue Section, K.E.B., Jog on 12.3.1997. The petitioner has refuted the other allegations made in the show cause notice. Again the Corporation has issued a second show cause notice as per Annexure-C dated 24.3.1999 stating that due to gross negligence and mischief of the petitioner, it has sustained a pecuniary loss of Rs.82,893/-. The notice provisionally proposed to impose one or more of the penalties against the petitioner as provided under Regulation 9 and petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation in that behalf as provided in Regulation 12(1)(a). The petitioner has sent a detailed reply as per Annexure-D dated 16.4.1999, reiterating the contentions urged in the previous reply. However, the Corporation has passed an order as per Annexure E imposing the following penalties: i) To recover Rs.82,893/- (Rupees eighty two thousand eight hundred and ninety three only) out of the salary at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month from July, 1999; ii) To withhold one annual increment next falling due without cumulative effect.

(3.) The petitioner has filed an appeal under Regulation 25 to the Chief Engineer of the Corporation. The Appellate Authority by the Order dated 12.12.2001 has rejected the appeal. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority at Annexure E and the appellate order as per Annexure-H in this writ petition.