Venkanna vs Managing Director KPTCL and Others

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the petitioner is that he was employed with the respondents. He has retired as an Accounts Officer on 31.12.2007. Due to certain acts of misconduct, articles of charge was issued to him. He submitted his reply. Being dissatisfied with the same, an enquiry was ordered. He participated in the enquiry. The charges were held proved. He was imposed with the punishment of withholding of two annual increments permanently. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal. The appeal was rejected. Hence, the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. That the Authorities failed to consider the material and evidence on record. That there is no financial loss to the respondents. The charges have been wrongly held to be proved. Even otherwise the punishment which is imposed on him is far too excessive. Hence, while placing reliance on the material on record, he pleads that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

On the other hand, Sri R.S. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order. He contends that there is no error committed by the respondents that calls for interference. A detailed enquiry has been held. The petitioner was granted adequate opportunity to defend himself. He has done so. The charges have been held proved. Hence, no interference is called for.

Heard learned counsels. Six charges were levelled against the petitioner. They are to the extent of arranging refund of EMD/FSD in respect of 34 bills without obtaining the satisfactory reports from the concerned field staff and also non-mentioning the name of the work, the date of completion and receipt number etc. and for arranging payment without obtaining the funds from the Corporate Office. Charge No. 2 is with reference to 41 bills, charge No. 3 is with reference to 15 bills, charge No. 4 is with reference to 8 bills, charge No. 5 is with reference to 5 bills and charge No. 6 is with reference to 124 bills. The management in all examined three witnesses and marked 12 documents. The petitioner was also examined and he marked 9 documents. A detailed enquiry was held. The charges were held to be proved. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.

I have considered the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer. The Enquiring Officer has accorded adequate opportunity to the petitioner to make out his case. He has failed to defend himself. The material on record would clearly show that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. I find no good ground to interfere with the same.

However so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding of two annual increments permanently. The petitioner has retired from service of the respondents in the year 2007. The charges levelled against him have not lead to any financial loss. However, the charges levelled against the petitioner is nothing but a case of insubordination and in non-complying with the rules and regulations of the respondents. It is an offence committed by the petitioner. The enquiry is also just and fair. However, I am of the considered view that keeping all these factors in mind, the punishment imposed would appear to be on the higher side. It is therefore just and appropriate and keeping in mind the facts of this case, that the punishment be modified by withholding of one annual increment permanently. I am of the considered view that the modification of the quantum of punishment would be just and fair and in the interest of both the parties.

Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. The punishment imposed by the authorities is modified to the extent of withholding one annual increment permanently. Rest of the impugned orders are undisturbed.

Petition is disposed off accordingly.