K. Seetharam Bhat vs Chief Engineer Electricity (General) and Disciplinary Authority, KPTCL and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (former KEB) and Appellate Authority

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents.

The facts are as follows:

It is the case of the Petitioner that while he was functioning as an Assistant Engineer-Electrical, in charge of Operations and Maintenance unit at Ganganagar, Bangalore of the Respondent-Corporation during the year 1997, a fatal accident had taken place causing the unfortunate death of an young boy aged 7, who had come into contact with a GI wire which was energized and was electrocuted. The first Respondent had immediately placed the Petitioner under suspension who alleged that though the defect of the GI wire was brought to his attention by the residents of the area, no action had been taken to rectify the defect and therefore, he had failed to discharge die duty properly and this had resulted in a fatal accident. The Petitioner had replied to the same furnishing the details of the incident, inter alia, contending that when he came to know of the incident from the general public, he rushed to the spot, put-off the power supply at the transformer centre and appropriate steps had been taken.

However, the first Respondent issued a notice dated 29.3.1997 proposing to take action against the Petitioner under Regulation 12 of the KEB Employees (CDC & A) Regulations, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations'' for brevity) alleging that the accident could have, been avoided if the Petitioner had taken preventive measures by providing insulators to the damaged wire and also by proper anchoring using the appropriate anchor rod instead of tying it to a tree and thereby the Petitioner had discharged his duties improperly and it was a deliberate act of negligence resulting in a fatal accident.

On the basis of the reply submitted by tne Petitioner, a penalty was imposed whereby one increment was withheld with cumulative effect. The Petitioner has challenged the same while drawing attention to Regulation 12 which deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties. The same reads as follows:

Procedure for Imposing Minor Penalties:

1) Subject to the provisions of the Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation 11(A), ho order imposing on a Board employee any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to Siva of Regulation 9 shall be made except alter--

a) informing the Board employee, in writing, of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;

b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in Sub-regulation (3) to (23) of Regulation II, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;

c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Board employee under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under ''clause (b) into consideration;

d) recording a finding the Board where such consultation is necessary;

e) consulting the Board where such consultation is necessary.

2) The record of the proceedings in such case shall include:

i) a copy of the intimation to the Board employee of the proposal to take action;

ii) a copy the statement of the imputations of misconduct or mis-behaviour delivered to him;

iii) his representation, if any;

iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;

v) the finding on each imputation of misconduct or mis-behaviour; and

vi) the orders of the case together with the reason therefor.

It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was no lapse on the part of the Petitioner and fault could not have been placed at the door of the Petitioner in respect of the allegations and further that the non-furnishing of documents requested by him deprived him of a valuable right of effective presentation of an appeal and therefore, grave prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner. The appeal also having been dismissed has compounded the injury and suffering of the Petitioner.

The learned Counsel would submit that the law is well settled as laid down by the apex court in O.K. Bharadwaj S. Union of India 200 (9) SCC 180, that even in respect of a minor penalty, an opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to have his say and if the same is denied, it results in violation of principles of natural justice.

Incidentally, the Petitioner would also point out that a criminal prosecution having been instituted against the Petitioner in respect of the very allegations, in Criminal Case No. 291/1998 before the Court of the IX Additional CMM, Bangalore for an offence punishable u/s 304A of the Indian Penal Code, the Petitioner having been acquitted of the offence, on the principle that when the prosecution has failed to bring home the. charges for the said offences, and a criminal case which required a high standard of proof having failed to bring home the charges, it could not be said on mere probabilities that d case having beer, made out against the Petitioner and disciplinary proceedings could be held against the Petitioner and therefore on that principle, would submit that the charges against the Petitioner ought to be dropped since the Petitioner never intended that there should be a fatal accident on account of a defective guy wire and it is by inadvertence that the defect has been overlooked resulting in the unfortunate death of a young boy. It is in this circumstance that the present, petition is filed.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand, has filed statement of objections to contend that there is admittedly no dispute about the incident having occurred and the same being as a result of a defective GI wire, it was the responsibility and the duty of the Petitioner to have maintained the same in order and it is only on account of the Petitioner''s negligence and want of diligence that the accident has occurred and if timely measures had been taken by the Petitioner, the accident could have been avoided and a young his saved.

Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that there can be no lenience shown insofar as the Petitioner is concerned. In any event, the penalty imposed is of a minor nature and hence, would not warrant interference by this Court as it is necessary in order to maintain discipline in the Corporation, that at least such minor penalty be imposed, though the damage caused is of a serious nature insofar as a young life has been taken away on account of the negligence on the part of the Petitioner.

Notwithstanding a strong plea made justifying the penalty imposed, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was entirely responsible for the same. The incident would not be termed as an accident if it was not one and therefore to hold the Petitioner entirely responsible for the accident could result in injustice. Though the Petitioner should take some of the blame for the accident having occurred, it would be just and proper to modify the penalty imposed to make proportionate with the want of diligence or* the part of the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The penalty imposed stands modified to withholding of one increment without cumulative effect.