S R LALMIYA Vs. SECRETARY KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A junior assistant, who was working in the office of the Karnataka electricity board ('board' for short), disturbed by the orders made by the employer in terminating his services, without holding an enquiry is before this court, in a petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution.

(2.) FACTS may be briefly noticed. They are as under: the petitioner was working as junior assistant in the respondent-board. While working at hubli, by an order dated 13-4-1992, he was transferred to bharamasagar. On a request made, petitioner was retransferred to ranebennur, by an order made by the officer of the board dated 24-4-1992. The said order was questioned by the petitioner before the civil court on various grounds and the petitioner had also sought for an ad interim order of injunction restraining the respondent-authorities not to give effect to the order of transfer. Having failed before the civil court in obtaining the relief sought in the application, petitioner had approached this court in mfa No. 1449 of 1992 and the same came to be rejected by an order made by this court on 25-9-1992.

(3.) WHILE proceedings pending before various civil courts, the executive engineer (electrical), Karnataka electricity board, haveri, had issued a call notice dated 10-7-1992 directing the petitioner to report for duty in the transferred place, since the employee had not reported for duty, in the transferred place though he was relieved from the post he was holding at hubli, within the prescribed joining time eligible as per rules. The call notice had been replied by the employee by bringing to the notice of the employer the pendency of civil proceedings before this court and also about his ill health. Since the explanation offered was not satisfactory, the employer issued one more recall notice to the employee, directing him to report for duty in the transferred place within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice dated 27-11-1992 came to be served on the employee on 30-11-1992 and since petitioner did not report for duty as directed in the recall notice, the disciplinary authority has proceeded to frame the impugned order by exercising his powers under regulation 9 of Karnataka electricity board employees' (classification, disciplinary control and appeal), regulations, 1987, by dismissing the petitioner from the services of the board with effect from an anterior date. Thereafter, the appeal to the appellate authority as provided under the regulations followed, which came to be rejected by an order dated 6-8-1993. It is these orders which has brought the petitioner before this court, aggrieved by the same.