AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—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.
Though the Petitioner has raised several contentions on the merits of the case, the primary contention is to the effect that the Regulations provide for penalties and the nature of penalties are either minor penalties or major penalties. The penalty imposed on the Petitioner is minor penalty as per Regulation 9(iv-a) which reads as follows:
Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period with a specific direction as to whether or not the Board employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction with reference to the reduced pay or whether the pay shall remain constant and with a further direction whether on the expiry of the period of penalty the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay.
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.
While the learned Counsel for the Respondent would contend that it is not the Petitioner''s case that the minor penalty imposed on the Petitioner was not capable of being imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The only objection the Petitioner seeks to raise is the quantum of penalty imposed. In that the reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay is passed unconditionally whereby the pay of the Petitioner would stand reduced to a lower stage in the time scale of pay till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation. This is not prohibited under the said Regulations. Therefore there is no warrant for interference by this Court. Insofar as the imposition of penalty is concerned, the learned Counsel would also seek to contest the several averments and grounds raised insofar as the facts of the case are concerned and contends that there is no dispute as to the installation being in respect of a multistoried building and that inspite of the same attracting charges which were far in excess of the charges which were actually imposed, the Petitioner willfully and for apparent personal benefit had sanctioned and serviced the installation, which is clearly in violation of the Regulations. Therefore, the punishment imposed is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference by this Court.
Having regard to the tenor of the Regulation which clearly prescribes conditions to be imposed, even if it can be presumed that the Authority is vested with the power to impose such penalty permanently, till the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation, this ought to have been spelt out in the order of penalty. That not having been indicated would result in injury and injustice to the Petitioner. It is further to be noticed that the punishment imposed ought to be proportionate to the loss that has occasioned to the Board. It is not the Petitioner alone who was responsible for the violation of the alleged Regulation in respect of the installation being serviced. In that view of the matter if the amount of loss that is admitted is taken into account the loss of pay the Petitioner would suffer, which conversely would be a gain to the employer, far exceeds the loss that has occasioned. This would also have to be kept in view in the Board imposing penalty on the Petitioner. Though it is canvassed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that it is not the quantum of loss that is material but the loss of integrity and the confidence the employer has lost by virtue of the illegal act of the employee which would be a criteria for imposing penalty. There is substance in the said contention but the Petitioner having attained his age of superannuation, the Respondent may take a lenient view insofar as the imposition of penalty is concerned in accordance with the tenor of Regulation in respect of the penalty that is sought to be imposed on him.
With these observations, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annexures-"J and L" are quashed. The matter is remitted for a fresh consideration in accordance with the observations made herein above and for the limited purpose of reconsidering the penalty that can be actually imposed on the Petitioner and quantum thereof.