PRAKASHAPPA vs GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS

Aggrieved by the suspension order dated 02.02.2018, passed by the General Manager (A & HR), BESCOM, the petitioner has approached

this Court.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be a graduate in Commerce. On 31.10.1986, he joined the services of the former

Karnataka Electricity Board on the post of Junior Assistant. Thereafter, he was promoted on different posts. On 02.07.2013, he was finally

promoted on the post of Accounts Officer. He was working in the office of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Malleshwaram Division, Bengaluru.

As Accounts Officer, he was incharge of the Accounts Section of the Executive Engineer (Electrical), BESCOM, Malleshwaram Division,

Bengaluru. While he was working at Malleshwaram, by order dated 14.03.2017, he was transferred to Ramanagara Division. The petitioner has

challenged the said transfer order before this Court by filing a writ petition, namely, W.P.No.11323/2017. The said petition is presently pending

before this Court. By order dated 14.03.2017, the petitioner''s transfer order has been stayed by this Court. The petitioner further claims that while

he was working in the office, one Kum. V. Varshini was his co-employee. She was working on the post of Assistant. Thus, she was a junior

colleague of the petitioner. By order dated 26.08.2017, she was transferred from Malleshwaram Sub-Division to C-4 Sub-Division. She was

relieved of her duties. But, according to the petitioner, she continued to work in the said office, even in the month of December 2017 to January

2018. During the course of the petitioner''s service, on 01.09.2017, some of the co-employees, including women employees, filed a representation

against the petitioner before the Superintendent Engineer (Electrical), wherein they claimed that for the first two years of his tenure in the office, the

petitioner did not create any trouble. However, ever since his wife has started suffering from cancer, the petitioner started giving trouble to women

employees, and other employees. According to them, the petitioner used abusive language, treated the employees with ""bad motive"", instigates one

group of employees against another group, and mentally tortures the employees. Moreover, according to them, some of the women employees are

called into his chamber, and subjected to abusive language. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, on 14.09.2017, Kum. Varshini and other

lady employees submitted a representation before the Chairman of the Internal Women Grievance Redressal Committee, the respondent No.6.

Considering the complaint filed by Kum. Varshini and other employees, the respondent No.6 visited the office of the petitioner, and conducted an

enquiry. At the time when the enquiry was conducted, on 20.09.2017, fifty-five employees also submitted a representation to the Managing

Director. The said representation was in favour of the petitioner. But, notwithstanding the representation made by the other co-employees in his

favour, on 10.11.2017, the Executive Engineer (Electrical) issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. On 27.11.2017, the petitioner replied to

the same. But, notwithstanding his explanation, by order dated 02.02.2018, the petitioner has been suspended from his post. Therefore, the

present petition before this Court.

Ms. Shwetha Ravishankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

Firstly, just prior to issuance of the suspension order, on 01.01.2018, the certificate of appreciation was given by the Electrical Company to the

petitioner. Moreover, due to the efforts of the petitioner and other employees, similar certificates of appreciation have been given to the

Malleshwaram (O&M) Division, on 05.05.2017 and on 09.12.2017. Thus, the petitioner''s performance, as an employee, has been outstanding.

But, notwithstanding the excellent performance, the petitioner has been suspended by order dated 02.02.2018.

Secondly, the complaint filed by the number of women was at the behest of Kum. Varshini. However, Kum. Varshini wields sufficient power

within the department. The extent of her power can be gauged from the fact that despite her transfer by order dated 26.08.2017, she continued to

work in her original place of posting, namely Malleshwaram Division, in the month of December 2017 and January 2018.

Thirdly, while fourteen employees have given a representation/complaint against the petitioner, as many as fifty-five employees have given a

representation in favour of the petitioner. Yet the respondent No.7 has ignored the representation given by the fifty-five employees in petitioner''s

favour.

Lastly, prior to passing the suspension order, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated

02.02.2018, deserves to be set aside by this Court.

Heard the learned counsel, and perused the records.

Merely because on 01.01.2018, the petitioner has been given a certificate of appreciation with regard to his efficiency as an employee, the same

would not preclude the employer from suspending the petitioner on a ground which has nothing to do, and is not related to his efficiency as a

worker. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel in this regard, is clearly unacceptable.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, at length, with regard to Kum. Varshini. The petitioner has, in fact, alleged malafide against

her. For, according to the petitioner, she is the one who has instigated the other co-employees to complain against him. Yet, interestingly, the

petitioner has not even added Kum. Varshini as a party-respondent before this Court. Needless to say, it is easy to allege malafide against a

person, but malafide has to be established through cogent and convincing evidence. Merely because Kum. Varshini may have continued to

discharge her duty in the office, where the petitioner is working, would not establish any malafide intention on her behalf. Therefore, the contention

raised with regard to Kum. Varshini, cannot be accepted by this Court.

A bare perusal of the complaint dated 01.09.2017, filed by the fourteen employees of the office, clearly reveals that according to them, the

petitioner did not vitiate the environment of the office for the first two years of his tenure in the office. It is only when his wife began suffering from

cancer, that allegedly his behaviour changed in the office. As mentioned above, he allegedly started using abusive language, treating the employees

with ""bad motive"", instigating one group of employees against another, mentally torturing some of the employees, and subjecting women employees

to abusive language. Thus, the main allegation against the petitioner is, because of his bad behaviour and unprofessional conduct, he has vitiated the

atmosphere of the office. The said allegation has nothing to do with his efficiency as an employee, but has to do with his alleged misbehaviour. A

similar complaint was also lodged by thirteen other employees before the Chairman, Women Complaints Redressal Forum. One of the person who

had lodged this particular complaint is Kum. Varshini. But, merely because she is one of the complainants, it cannot be inferred that she has

instigated others to lodge a complaint against the petitioner. The said complaint, according to the petitioner, was enquired into. But the petitioner

does spell out as to what was the finding of the enquiry.

It is true that another representation was filed by fifty-five co-employees testifying to the petitioner''s congenial behaviour and cordial

relationship. However, considering the fact that there are complaints against his behaviour, considering the fact that the respondents are

contemplating the initiation of a disciplinary action against the petitioner, the respondents are justified in suspending the petitioner. After all, a

suspension order is passed when a departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner. According to the impugned order dated

02.02.2018, a departmental action is, indeed, contemplated against the petitioner. What is the nature of the petitioner''s behaviour, good, bad or

indifferent, can only be assessed during the departmental enquiry. Thus, it is too early for this Court to accept the representation given by the fifty-

five employees, in favour of the petitioner, as the gospel truth.

As far as the last contention raised by the learned counsel is concerned that an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner

prior to passing the suspension order, suffice it to say that a suspension order is not a punishment order. Moreover, in case the requirement of

giving an opportunity of hearing has to be read, it would defeat the very purpose of suspending an employee. After all, an employee is suspended

when the employer is convinced that the continuation of an employee in the office would further adversely affect the smooth functioning of the office

or the establishment. Therefore, the requirement of giving an opportunity before suspending an employee is a selfdefeating proposition. The

contention is, thus, unacceptable.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.