- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12037 OF 2025 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12000 OF 2025 (S-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 12039 OF 2025 (S-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 12040 OF 2025 (S-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 12932 OF 2025 (S-RES) IN WP No. 12037/2025: BETWEEN: 1. MR. RAMASWAMI LAMANI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O. BHEEMAPPA LAMANI, R/O. BESCOM QUARTERS, CHELUR, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR-572117. 2. MR. SIDDANNA BHIMSHYA VALEKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. BHIMSHYA VALEKAR, R/O. BESCOM QUARTERS, HORAPETE CIRCLE, TUMKUR-572102. R/O AMINGAD, HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTE-587112. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNA S. VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY. Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND LIVELYHOOD, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) AND APPOINTING AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, O AND M TUMKUR DIVISION, BESCOM OFFICE, TUMKUR-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEARING NOs. PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¹(¹)/2025-26/35-42 and PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¹(¹)/2025-26/43-50 (STATED AS KaNiIn(V)/LeA/SLeA/HiSi(Si)/2025-26/35-42 AND KaNiIn(V)/LeA/SLeA/HiSi(Si)/2025-26/43-50 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION), BOTH DATED 03.04.2025, PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, AT ANNEXURES-K AND K1 RESPECTIVELY, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS IN WP NO. 12000/2025: BETWEEN: MR. SANJIVA MOTILAL RATHOD, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. MOTILAL RATHOD, R/O. BESCOM QUARTERS, TB CIRCLE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577527. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNA S. VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND LIVELYHOOD, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) AND APPOINTING AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, O AND M CHITRADURGA DIVISION, BESCOM OFFICE, CHITRADURGA-577527. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.4; - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/25-26/155-158 (STATED AS KaNiIn(V)/LeA/SLeA/HiSi(Si)/2025-26/155-158 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) DATED 03.04.2025, PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, AT ANNEXURE-J RESPECTIVELY, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC. IN WP NO. 12039/2025: BETWEEN: MR. VEERESH C MADIWALAR @ VEERESH CHOWDAPPA MADIWALAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. CHOWDAPPA MADIWALAR, R/O. BESCOM QUARTERS, SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY CIRCLE, KOTITOP ROAD, TUMKUR-572102. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNA S VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND LIVELYHOOD, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) AND APPOINTING AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, O AND M TUMKUR DIVISION, BESCOM OFFICE, TUMKUR-572102. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¹(¹)/2025-26/27-34 (sssssSTATED AS KaNiIn(V)/LeA/SLeA/HiSi(Si)/2025-26/27-34 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) DATED 03.04.2025, PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, AT ANNEXURE-K, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC. IN WP NO. 12040/2025: BETWEEN: 1. MR. SIDDAPPA JALIHAL S/O SHARANAPPA JALIHAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINEMAN - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS BESCOM, CHANDAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHANDAPURA, BANGALORE-560099 R/O NAGENDRAGAD VILLAGE RON TALUK, GADAG-582211 2. MR. BASAVARAJ JALIHAL, S/O SHIVALINGAPPA JALIHAL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINEMAN BESCOM, ATTIBELE SUB-DIVISION CHANDAPURA, BANGALORE-560099 R/O HOSAHALLI VILLAGE RON TALUK, GADAG-582209 3. MR. MUTTURAJ HUNAGUNDA, S/O NINGAPPA HUNAGUNDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINEMAN BESCOM, ATTIBELE SUB-DIVISION CHANDAPURA, BANGALORE-560099 R/O AMINGAD, HUNAGUNDA TALUK, BAGALKOTE-587112 4. MR. SANGAPPA S TELEGADE, S/O SHRISHAILA TELAGADE AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINEMAN BESCOM, CHANDAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHANDAPURA, BANGALORE-560099 R/O BENAL VILLAGE, BASAVANABAGEWAD, BIJAPUR -586201 5. MR. RAVIKUMAR NAGAI, S/O BHIMSAHA NAGAI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LINEMAN BESCOM, CHANDAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHANDAPURA, BANGALORE-560099 R/O HANCHANAHAL, JEVARGI TALUK GULBARGA-585212 ...PETITIONERS - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNA S VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND LIVELYHOOD, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM, CHANDAPURA SUB-DIVISION, CHANDAPURA, BENGALURU-560099. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 03.04.2025 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS (1) IMPUGNED ORDER NO.PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025- 26/198-203 ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.1, (2) IMPUGNED ORDER NO. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/174-79 (STATED AS PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/174-179 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.2, (3) IMPUGNED ORDER NO.PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/186-91 (STATED AS PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/186-191 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.3, (4) IMPUGNED ORDER NO.PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/192-97 (STATED AS PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/192-197 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.4, (5) IMPUGNED ORDER NO.PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/180-85 (STATED AS PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/180-185 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURES-M TO M4 AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC. IN WP NO. 12932/2025: BETWEEN: 1. MR. JOHN P GIRANI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. PARASHURAM, R/O. KATHAPURA POST, BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOT-587201. PRESENTLY WORKING AS, ASST. LINEMAN, BESCOM, HARIHARA DIVISION, HONNALI SUB DIVISION, HARIHARA, DAVANGERE-577601. 2. MR. CHANNAMALLAPPA BADODAGI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O BASAVARAJ, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS R/O SARUR POST MUDEBIHALA TALUK, VIJAYAPURA-586129. PRESENTLY WORKING AS, ASST. LINEMAN, BESCOM, HARIHARA DIVISION, HONNALI SUB DIVISION, HARIHARA, DAVANGERE-577601. 3. MR. KAJESA AMEENASA NADAF, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. AMEENASA, R/O. SALWADGI, VIJAYAPURA-586129. PRESENTLY WORKING AS, ASST. LINEMAN, BESCOM, HARIHARA DIVISION, HONNALI SUB DIVISION, HARIHARA, DAVANGERE-577601. 4. MR. RAFEEK NADAF, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. HUSENABI, R/O. K. SALAWADI, BASAVANABAGEWADI, VIJAYAPURA-586129. PRESENTLY WORKING AS, ASST. LINEMAN, BESCOM, HARIHARA DIVISION, HONNALI SUB DIVISION, HARIHARA, DAVANGERE-577601. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KRISHNA S VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM, KR CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND LIVELYHOOD, BANNERGATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BESCOM, HARIHARA SUB-DIVISION, HARIHARA, DAVANGERE-577601. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 03.04.2025 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: (1) IMPUGNED ORDER NO. PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/25- 26/125-29 (STATED AS PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/2025-26/125-29 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.1, (2) IMPUGNED ORDER NO. PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/25- 26/120-24 (STATED AS PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/2025-26/120-24 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.2, (3) IMPUGNED ORDER NO. PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/25- 26/135-39 (STATED AS PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/2025-26/135-39 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.3, (4) IMPUGNED ORDER NO. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/25-26/130-34 (STATED AS PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/130-34 IN THE PRAYER PORTION OF THE PETITION) ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURES-M TO M3 AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER In W.P. No.12037/2025, the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders bearing Nos.PÁ¤EA(«) / ¯ÉC / ¸À¯ÉC / »¹(¹) / 2025-26 / 35-42 and PÁ¤EA(«) / ¯ÉC / ¸À¯ÉC / »¹(¹) / 2025-26 / 43-50 both dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 terminating the services of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as being arbitrary, illegal and passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents, particularly, respondent No.4 to consider and act upon the Enquiry report dated 29.04.2023 submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Further, they have sought for - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS a direction to the respondents to release all service benefits withheld from the petitioners during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings including but not limited to salary arrears, consideration for promotion, consequential seniority, and all other attendant benefits, strictly in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.A. No.261/2020. 2. In W.P. No.12000/2025, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order bearing No.PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/25- 26/155-158 dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 as being arbitrary, illegal and passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents, particularly, respondent No.4 to consider and act upon the Enquiry Report dated 29.04.2023 submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Further, he has sought for a direction to the respondents to release all service benefits withheld from the petitioner during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings including but not limited to salary arrears, consideration for promotion, consequential seniority, and all other attendant - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS benefits, strictly in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.A. No.261/2020. 3. In W.P. No.12039/2025, the petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order bearing No. PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¹(¹)/2025-26/27-34 dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 as being arbitrary, illegal and passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents, particularly, respondent No.4 to consider and act upon the Enquiry Report dated 29.04.2023 submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Further, he has sought for a direction to the respondents to release all service benefits withheld from the petitioner during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings including but not limited to salary arrears, consideration for promotion, consequential seniority, and all other attendant benefits, strictly in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.A. No.261/2020. 4. In W.P. No.12040/2025, the petitioners have sought for quashing the impugned orders bearing Nos. PÁ¤EA(«)/ ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/198-203, PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/ 174- - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS 79, PÁ¤EA(«) / ZÀA / ¯É / ¸À¯É / »¸À / PÀ13 / 2025-26 / 186-91, PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/192-97, and PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ 13/2025-26/180-85 all dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 terminating the services of the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively, as being arbitrary, illegal and passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents, particularly, respondent No.4 to consider and act upon the Enquiry report dated 29.04.2023 submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondents to release all service benefits withheld from them during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings including but not limited to salary arrears, consideration for promotion, consequential seniority, and all other attendant benefits, strictly in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.A. No.261/2020. 5. In W.P. No.12932/2025, the petitioners have sought for quashing the impugned orders bearing Nos. PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/25-26/125-29, PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/25- 26/120-24, PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/25-26/135-39 and - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/25-26/130-34 all dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 terminating the services of the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively, as being arbitrary, illegal and passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents, particularly, respondent No.4 to consider and act upon the Enquiry Report dated 29.04.2023 submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondents to release all service benefits withheld from them during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings including but not limited to salary arrears, consideration for promotion, consequential seniority, and all other attendant benefits, strictly in terms of the directions issued by this Court in W.A. No.261/2020. 6. In all these petitions, the respective petitioners claimed that they successfully passed “Electrician” trade test prescribed by the State Council for Vocational Training ('SCVT' for short) conducted by the respondent No.3. After they were issued the provisional State Trade certificate, they applied for - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS appointment as Assistant Linemen. The petitioners were all appointed based on their qualifications. They contend that after their appointments, the educational records including marks cards, SCVT certificates were forwarded to the respondent No.3 for verification regarding genuineness. The respondent No.3 raised objections regarding the authenticity of the petitioners’ marks cards alleging that the they had obtained approval from the head office of the respondent No.3 at Bengaluru instead of securing the same from the concerned Divisional office. The respondents without conducting any enquiry or without providing any opportunity to the petitioners to be heard, terminated their services. This was questioned by some of the petitioners before this Court in several writ petitions where the coordinate Bench/es of this Court quashed the order/s of termination and directed reinstatement of the petitioner/s therein into service. However, the respondent authorities instead of complying the order passed by this Court, preferred W.A. No.261/2020. The Division Bench took up the aforesaid appeal and other connected cases and by judgment dated 09.11.2020, upheld the order/s of the learned Single Judge in so far as it related to reinstatement of the employees / - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS respondents therein into service while holding that the reinstatement of the employees shall be subject to the enquiry to be commenced and completed by the appellant/s therein and further directed the respondent No.2 in W.A. No.261/2020 - The Commissioner, Department of Employment and Training, to submit a report with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the marks cards of 173 and other employees to the appellants therein. The Division Bench appointed Sri H.M. Nanjunda Swamy, a retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry and to submit a report to the appellants therein and he was directed to complete the proceedings within nine months from the date of commencement of the enquiry by him. The Enquiry Officer entered reference and took up proceedings. The Joint Director of the respondent No.3 was examined as a witness. After a detailed enquiry and appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report exonerating the petitioners of all charges. It was reported that the petitioners had not committed any misconduct or falsification of the records. The petitioners contend that despite such a clear and unambiguous exoneration, the respondents failed to act upon the report. The - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS petitioners made repeated representations requesting the implementation of the enquiry report and for closure of the disciplinary proceedings. However, the respective respondent No.4 in these petitions issued show cause notice/s rejecting the enquiry report without assigning any reason and called upon the petitioner/s to show cause as to why he/they should not be terminated. The petitioner/s submitted detailed responses to the said notice/s. The respective respondent No.4 in terms of the impugned orders, proceeded to reject the enquiry report and once again reiterated the proposed action against the petitioners. The petitioners contend that the impugned orders terminating their services are all in flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 11(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Regulations, 1987’). 7. The learned senior counsel for the respective petitioner/s in these petitions vehemently submitted that the procedure for taking action on an enquiry report submitted by an Enquiry Officer is provided under Regulation 11(A) of the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS Regulations, 1987. He contends that it was incumbent upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to first notify the reasons for not accepting the report of the Enquiry officer, provide an opportunity to the petitioners to represent against the same and thereafter, issue a notice disclosing the reason for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer and proposing to impose the punishment. He contends that though the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioners, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 without notifying the petitioners about the reasons for rejecting or refusing to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer, have proceeded to issue final show cause notice/s to terminate the petitioners followed by order/s of termination. He contends that this is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as Regulation 11(A) of the Regulations, 1987. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84]. He, therefore prayed that the impugned orders of termination of services of the petitioner/s be set at naught. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS 8. Per contra, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent No.4 submitted that the petitioners were all appointed as Assistant Linemen based on the Trade Certificate/s issued by the SCVT conducted by the respondent No.3. He contends that the respondent Nos.2 and 4 referred the credentials of the petitioners to the respondent No.3, who found that they were not in accordance with law and therefore, they were compelled to terminate the services of the petitioners which was challenged by the petitioners before this Court in various writ petitions. He admitted that coordinate Bench/es of this Court had allowed / disposed of the petitions quashing the orders of termination of the services of the petitioners therein and directed their reinstatement into service, which was challenged by the respondent No.2 and officer/s of BESCOM before this Court in W.A. No.261/2020 and connected cases. He also admitted that the Division Bench of this Court in terms of its judgment dated 09.11.2020, partly allowed the appeals and while doing so, had appointed a retired District Judge as an Enquiry officer to go into the allegations against the respondents therein / employees. He submitted that the Joint Director of the respondent No.3 was examined - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS before the Enquiry Officer and that the Inquiring Authority had submitted a report exonerating the petitioners of all charges. However, he contends that it is not incumbent upon the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer. He contends that the respondent Nos.2 and 4 can always reject the report of the Enquiry Officer or direct a further enquiry. He, therefore, contends that the respective respondent No.4 had issued show cause notice/s to the petitioner/s indicating his intention to reject the report of the Enquiry Officer and to proceed to punish the petitioner/s. He contends that the petitioners were heard in the matter and they were given opportunity to submit their objections and that the petitioners had all submitted their objections and that after considering their objections, the impugned orders of termination of services of the petitioners’ were passed. He, therefore, contends that there is nothing amiss and hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders. 9. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 adopted the contentions of the learned Senior counsel for respondent 4. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/s, learned senior counsel for respondent No.4 as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 11. It appears from the report of the Enquiry Officer that the Enquiry Officer had specifically exonerated the petitioners of any misdoing and had reported that the documents furnished by the petitioners were all genuine. The report of the Enquiry Officer was placed before the respondent Nos.2 and 4. The respondent Nos.2 and 4 instead of complying with the procedure as prescribed under Regulation 11(A) of the Regulations, 1987, had issued show cause notice/s proposing to terminate the petitioner/s by rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer. The show cause notice/s did not specify the reasons for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner/s was/were not put on notice about such reasons. No opportunity was provided to the petitioners' before the respondent Nos.2 and 4 rejected the report of the Enquiry Officer. The procedure for considering the report of the Enquiry Officer is prescribed - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS under Regulation 11(A) of the Regulations, 1987, which reads as follows: "[11][A] Action on the Inquiry Report: The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Regln.-11 as far as may be. [2] The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. [3] If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that one or more of the penalties specified in Regln.-9 should be imposed on the Board employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regln.-12, make an order imposing such penalty;" 12. A perusal of the above makes it more than evident that the petitioners had to be notified about the reasons for rejection of the report of the Enquiry Officer and only upon rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer, could the respondent Nos.2 and 4 take further disciplinary action against the petitioners. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS for the petitioner/s, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunj Behari Misra (supra) had held as follows: "18. ….When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the enquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the enquiry officer, they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the enquiry officer's report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation, the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the disciplinary authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as explained In Karunakar case ((1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L and S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704). 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 13. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the respective respondent No.4 in these petitions thereby terminating the services of petitioner/s, being mala fide and without following the principles of natural justice and in violation of Regulation 11(A) of the Regulations, 1987, deserve to be quashed. Hence, the following: ORDER i. W.P. No.12037/2025 is allowed. The impugned orders bearing Nos.PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¹(¹)/2025-26/35-42 and PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¹(¹)/2025-26/43-50 of even date i.e., 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 terminating the services of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively, are quashed. The case/s is/are remitted back to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to issue fresh notice/s informing the petitioners about the reasons for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84]. ii. W.P. No.12000/2025 is allowed. The impugned order bearing No.PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¹)/25- 26/155-158 dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed. The case is remitted back to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to issue a fresh notice informing the petitioner about the reasons for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84]. iii. W.P. No.12039/2025 is allowed. The impugned order bearing No. PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¹(¹)/2025-26/27-34 dated 03.04.2025 - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS passed by the respondent No.4 terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed. The case is remitted back to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to issue a fresh notice informing the petitioner about the reasons for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84]. iv. W.P. No.12040/2025 is allowed. The impugned orders bearing Nos. PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ 13/2025-26/198-203, PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/174-79, PÁ¤EA(«) / ZÀA / ¯É / ¸À¯É / »¸À / PÀ13/2025-26/186-91, PÁ¤EA(«) / ZÀA / ¯É / ¸À¯É / »¸À / PÀ13 / 2025-26 / 192-97, and PÁ¤EA(«)/ZÀA/¯É/¸À¯É/»¸À/PÀ13/2025-26/180-85 of even date i.e., 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 terminating the services of the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively, are quashed. The case/s is/are remitted back to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to issue fresh notice/s informing the petitioners about the - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS reasons for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84]. v. W.P. No.12932/2025 is allowed. The impugned order bearing Nos. PÁ¤EA(«) / ¯ÉC / ¸À¯ÉC / »¸À(¸Á) / 25-26 / 125-29, PÁ¤EA(«)/¯ÉC/¸À¯ÉC/»¸À(¸Á)/25-26/120- 24, PÁ¤EA(«) / ¯ÉC / ¸À¯ÉC / »¸À(¸Á) / 25-26 / 135-39 and PÁ¤EA(«) / ¯ÉC / ¸À¯ÉC / »¸À(¸Á) / 25-26 / 130-34 all dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 terminating the services of the petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively, are quashed. The case/s is/are remitted back to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to issue fresh notice/s informing the petitioners about the reasons for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84]. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:17605 WP No. 12037 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12000 of 2025 WP No. 12039 of 2025 AND 2 OTHERS vi. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of 45 days months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In view of disposal of these petitions, the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23