4, t F / IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 19% BEFORE THE HON’BL.c MR.JUSTICE H.L. DATTU WRIT PETITION NO.17525/19 9 p BETWEEN: H.N. Sampath Kumar S/c. A.S. Narasimbachar aged about 40 yrs. Ant. Engineer (Mccli) Office of the ECEOT Karnataka Power Corporatjo Sudarshan Complex 0 22/23 Seshadri Road, Bangajore. .... Petitioner. (By Sri Janardhan G. Adv.) AND: 1. The Managing Director Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd Shakthi Bha,,ar, No.82 Race Course Road, Bangajore—% 001. 2. K. Sudheendra Executive Engineer (Eleci) and Enquiry Officer Offi-e of the FCEOT, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Sudharshan Complex No.22/ia, Seshadri Road Bangalore. ... Respondents. This W.P. is filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, Praying to quash Annexure A dated 22.5.1997, etc. This W P. coming on for Preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following. • 2.. Petitioner is an Asst. &gineer (I’!echa nical) working in the office of the Ksrnataka Power Dorporaton, Bangalore, He is before this Court m.nly aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings by the respondent-authority for the purpose of holling a domestic encuiry by issuing a charge memo dated 22..i997. Peti tioner is also seeking a direction to the respcndents to furnish the petitioner 1i the doiments sought for by him under Annexure K, Lastly, to direct the respondents-disciplinary authority to keep the witnesses whose names are mentioned by the petitioner in the list of witnesses submitted at the tine of record ing of evidence duing th enquiry proceeitngs. 2. In support of the firct relief, it is stated that the charge memo does not disose any misconduct for which the charges are ed ni therefore tne initiation of danestic enauiry proceedings is bad and illegal. This assertion in my iiw has no merit. The prem Court ifl the case of TH DIUT iSPGOR . C 3 S C PLI 1. K.z. wYi:a reported at 1997(1) SLR 176 wo pleased to observe as under: it is settled law catena of decisions of this Court that if the charge emo is totally vague and does not dis close any misconduct for which the charges have been framed, the Tribunal or the court would not be justIfied at that stage tc go into whether the charges are true and could be gone into, for it would be a matter on production of the evidence for consideration at the encuiry by the enzIry officer. At the stage of framing of the charge, the statement of facts and the charge sheet supplied are requd red to be looked into by the Court or the Tribunal as to the nature of the charges i.e., whether the statement of facts ar material in support thereof supplied to the de1n- quent officer woull disclose the alleged misconduct. The tribunal, therefore, was tota ily unjustified in going into the charges at that stage. it s not the cse that the charge memo ad the statement of’ facts do not disclose any ms conduct iged against the delInquent officer. Therefore. the rribu nal was totally wrong In cuash ing the charge memo. In similar circumstances, in respect of other persons i7olved in the same transactions, thIs Court in appeals arising out of P (C) Nos,19+53—S3 of 1995 had cr1 February, 9, 1996 allowed the appeals, set aside the 4 . , , orders passed by the Triiriai and remitte the matter hold ing that: “This is not the stage at which the truth or other wise of the charges ought to be looked into. This is the uniforrn 7iew taken by this Court in such matters,” 5, respectfully agree th the aboie conclusion and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. The enquiry officer is dircted to condict and complete the enquiry within a period of eight months from the date of the receiDt of the order and the disciplinary authority is directed to take -action tereon tithin three months thereafter.” 3. In view of the law declared by aieme Ctt, it is not proper for me to go into truth or otherwise of the ailegations made in the charge memo. Therefore, the first relief sought for by the petitioner is re e cted. Secondly, it is contended that there ls delay in initiating the domestic enauiry proceedings. Therefore, the charge rerro IS bad and in9alid. To my mind, ev thIs contention ias nc merit. Petitioner has 4 4 * 5. • not eren asserted how the delay it at all is there in initiating the proceedings has caused any prejudice to hts case. The Supree Court in the case of B. C. DR7)I 1. UNlC CF INlA reported at 1995(5) 3LR 778 was pleased to obserre that delay ir initiating the proceddings iS not fqtal in all cases. It depends on f acts and cirim— stances of each case, 5. Lastly, t is contended that the disciplinary authority erred in deciding to hold second enquiry for the alleged inci dent when the earlier enquiry held through one Mahadeva Gowda as the inquiry of’ftcer has already given a report to first respondent stating that the responsible persons for the alleged incident is the Asst, xeitiv Fngi fleer (M) and that report has been accepted by Karnat&t, Power Corporation and action i ten ast the said offioer and the matter i dosed, In my view, even this eubmission ias no merit for the reason, this is not the case where second enquiry is being held against . .6 * . the petitioner for the offence. An enquiry hd been ordered against some other official of Karnataka Power Corporation may be for th same offence ani that does not prohibit the disciplinary authority to hofl. a domestic enquiry against the petitioner for the al ged lapses mentioned in the charge memo. 6. In so far as other reliefs are ncerned, the delinquent officer can take up all those contentioas either before the enquiry officer at the time of enauiry or after cpletion of’ the enquiry and the final orders ,before the aproprite forum. ?. In that view of the matter, the writ petition so filed by the petitioner is whclly premature. Accordingly, writ oetition is rejected. All the contenticn’ raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open. Petitioner iC also given liberty to approach the appropriate forum immediately after me finai order that would be made by the disciplinary authority. S Sf • 8. ‘th these obserr,ations arid iirections, writ petition is disposed of, Ordered accordingly. Sd/ JUDGE