- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 51953 OF 2019 (S-R) BETWEEN: SRI. SAVAKAIAH S/O LATE NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED MECHANIC GRADE-II, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, R/AT DOOR NO.15, 6TH CROSS, YELECHANAHALLI, NEAR SUPREME LEATHER GARMENTS, OPP. TO PROTESTANT CHURCH, YELECHANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR), KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 O AND M CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY 400 KV STATION AND SSM DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, TALAGUPPA, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISRICT-577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJA H.T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.06.2019 BEARING NO.Ka NI EM Le Ah/He Sa/400KV/Tha/2019- 20-Ka/627-33 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE- J AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2019 BEARING NO.Ah Im (V)/He Ah Sa/3390-94 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No. Ka Ni EM Le Ah / He Sa/ 400KV/ Tha/2019-20/Ka/627-33, dated 04.06.2019 passed by the respondent No.4 by which, he was compulsorily retired with 75% of his pension. He has also - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 challenged an order bearing No. Ah Im (V)/He Ah Sa/3390-94, dated 12.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 who modified the punishment and dismissed the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Casual Labourer by the respondent No.1 in terms of an order dated 14.03.1985 and he reported to duty on 19.03.1985. He was later absorbed as a permanent employee. At the time of his absorption, he had mentioned his name as Savakaiah and he was issued with batch No.MAN-227. Upon his absorption, a service register was opened and at that time he was working at Mangaluru sub-division. At the time of opening the service register, he was asked to obtain a birth certificate. Accordingly, he produced a duplicate transfer certificate issued in the name of Savakaiah, which was obtained by his father. He claimed that his appointment was not on the basis of any qualification and that the transfer certificate was produced only for the purpose of entering his date of birth in the service register. He specifically contends that he was not appointed on the basis of the transfer certificate and absorption was not made on the basis of the transfer certificate. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Mechanic Grade-II on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 01.01.1987 and he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2019. 3. When things stood thus, a complaint was lodged alleging that the petitioner had furnished a false transfer certificate and obtained an appointment. The respondent No.2 therefore directed the respondent No.4 to forward the service records of the petitioner on 22.08.2017. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 forwarded the records on the same day. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.08.2018 calling for an explanation that the transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner for the purpose was fabricated and why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the transfer certificate was submitted only for the purpose of entering the date of birth in the service register and that his appointment or absorption was not made on the basis of the transfer certificate. He also claimed that the transfer certificate was obtained by his father and that he had not committed any misconduct as stated in the notice. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 4. The disciplinary authority not satisfied with the explanation, issued article of charges as provided under Regulation 2 of KPTCL employees' (Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (henceforth referred to as 'The Regulations, 1987'), alleging that the petitioner had produced a fabricated transfer certificate at the time of his absorption for the purpose of entering his date of birth in the service register and was continued in service though he had not studied in the school and therefore, had committed an act of misconduct. A retired District Judge was appointed as an inquiring authority. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. The inquiring authority submitted his report to respondent No.4 holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The respondent No.4 issued a second show-cause notice proposing to impose a penalty of compulsory retirement and to pay 75% pension under Regulation 176 of the Regulations, 1987. The petitioner submitted his explanation as to why the findings of the Enquiring Authority cannot be accepted. The respondent No.4 based on the enquiry report, proceeded to compulsorily retire the petitioner and granted him 75% pension. The petitioner was also relieved on the same day. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 competent authority forwarded the pension papers of the petitioner for release of pension and in the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2019. 5. Being aggrieved by the penalty of compulsory retirement, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.3 on 05.09.2019, specifically contending that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider the explanation submitted by him to the second show-cause notice and had mechanically accepted the findings of the inquiring authority, who had largely relied on the evidence of the Head Master of the school, who had given information that Sri.B.N.Savukaiah was born on 14.08.1959, whereas the admission register of the school placed before the enquiring authority was of the year 1963-64. He also contended that PW-1 was not the Head Master at the time when the transfer certificate was issued, which bore the signature of Sri.Doddaiah, who was the teacher at that time. The respondent No.3 proceeded to pass an order under Regulation 27 to review the order of the disciplinary authority and enhanced the penalty from compulsory retirement with 75% pension to that of dismissal from service. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the respondent No.3 as well as the order of the respondent No.4, this writ petition is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Regulation 25 of the Regulations, 1987 provides for the manner of consideration of an appeal filed by an employee against an order of penalty specified in Regulation 9. He contends that Regulation 25(2) reads as under: (i) "Appellate Authority shall not impose any enhanced penalty unless such authority or authority which made the order appealed against is competent to impose such penalty. (ii) No order imposing an enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty." 8. He contends that the petitioner was not issued with any notice by the respondent No.3 before enhancing the punishment. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is bad in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 9. He further contends that Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1987 provides for review of orders by the disciplinary authority, which reads as follows: “27. Review of orders in disciplinary cases: The authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Regulation-9 lies, may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of the case in a disciplinary proceedings, review any order passed in such a case and after consultation with the Board/Corporation where such consultation is necessary, pass such orders as it deems fit, as if the Board/Corporation employee had preferred an appeal against such order. Provided that no action under this Regulation shall be initiated more than 6 months after the date of order to be reviewed”. 10. He contends that the appellate authority could not have exercised power of review since the petitioner had filed an appeal and therefore, the appeal had to be considered as provided under Regulation 25 of the Regulations, 1987. 11. He contends that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2019 and therefore, the appellate authority must have considered the circumstances before passing the drastic penalty of dismissal from service. Besides - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 this, he contends that the petitioner had worked from the year 1985 till the year 2019 and the respondents have not taken any action from the date of his appointment. He contends that the complaint filed against the petitioner was ill motivated. He also contends that the petitioner was already compulsorily retired in terms of an order passed by the disciplinary authority on 31.08.2019 and therefore, the question of dismissing the petitioner from service retrospectively, i.e., from 04.06.2019 does not arise. He referred to the evidence of the Head Master of the school, who was examined as PW-1 before the inquiring authority. He contends that the transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner was under the signature of Sri.Doddaiah while the records relied on/produced by the Head Master related to the admission register of the year 1963-64 which related to one Sri.B.N.Savukaiah. Therefore, he contends that the finding of the inquiring authority and the reliance placed on it by the disciplinary authority are both perverse and hence, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority has to be set aside. 12. He also contends that the petitioner did not produce the transfer certificate, at the time of his appointment as a - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 Casual Labourer or at the time of his absorption but had produced it only for the limited purpose of entering his date of birth in service register. He therefore contends that the respondents were not justified in dismissing the petitioner from service on the assumed ground that the petitioner produced the transfer certificate for the purpose of obtaining an employment. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority therefore warrants interference. 13. The petition is opposed by the respondents who admit that the petitioner was appointed as a Casual Labourer on 14.03.1985 and that he reported to duty on 19.03.1985. They also admit that his services were absorbed as a permanent employee as supernumerary workmen under the direct recruitment quota. They contend that at the time of opening the service register, it was the duty of the employee to submit an authenticated date of birth/transfer certificate in order to enter the date of birth in the service register in view of the Regulation 9(4) of the KEB Employees’ Service Regulations, which reads as follows: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 “Age for the purpose of these Regulations shall be computed from the date of birth of an employee, evidence of which shall be produced by the employee at the time of his employment or within such period as the appointing authority may direct”. 14. They contend that the complaint was lodged against the petitioner that he had furnished a false transfer certificate at the time of his absorption. Following this, the respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.4 to forward the service records of the petitioner. They contend that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why action should not be initiated against him and that the petitioner submitted his reply, which was found to be not satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, who issued article of charges and initiated a departmental enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. They admit that the enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Consequently, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service with 75% pension. They also admit that in an appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.3. The punishment - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 imposed by the disciplinary authority was reviewed and modified and the petitioner was dismissed from service. It is contended that the petitioner was bound to furnish proof of his date of birth and therefore, the petitioner must have produced some documents which contain the actual date of birth. They contend that the petitioner could not have furnished a fabricated document containing a transfer certificate submitted by him at the time of his absorption and that such absorption was made as per the rules in force at that time. They contend that the employer has the right to verify the authenticity of the documents submitted by an employee either at the time of employment or during the service of the employee. They contend that the report dated 12.09.2017 submitted by the Head Master of Government Higher Primary School, Netkal, regarding the authenticity of the transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner, was based on the record available in the school and hence, the contention of the petitioner, that the certificate was issued by one Sri.Doddaiah and that PW-1 was not the person who was in office at the time of issuing a transfer certificate, is inconsequential. Therefore, it is - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 contended that the petitioner had committed misconduct in producing a fake transfer certificate. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above contentions and contended that the reviewing authority has power to review any order passed under Rule 27 of the Rules, 1987. He contends that the reviewing authority, after being satisfied that the petitioner had fraudulently furnished a fake transfer certificate, had felt it appropriate to enhance the punishment. He therefore contends that the impugned order passed by the respondents may not be disturbed. 16. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 17. The petitioner had joined the service of the respondent No.1 as a Casual Labourer on 14.03.1985 and reported to duty on 19.03.1985. He was thereafter absorbed as a permanent employee and his name was mentioned as Savakaiah in the service record. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Mechanic Grade–II on 01.01.1987. Just prior to - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 his retirement on 31.08.2019, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner alleging that he had furnished a false transfer certificate and had obtained an appointment. Following this, a show-cause notice was issued and an enquiry was conducted where it was held that the charge against the petitioner were proved. The charge against the petitioner was as follows: "DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ "²æÃ. ©.J£ï.¸ÀªÀPÀAiÀÄå, ªÉÄPÁå¤Pï zÀeÉð-2, n.¹.J¸ï.r., PÀ«¥À椤, eÉÆÃUÀ gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ:- ²æà ©.J£ï ¸ÀªÀPÀAiÀÄå DzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ CA¢£À PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è PÁådÄAiÀÄ¯ï ¯Éçgï C ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.03.1985 gÀAzÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAr¢ÝÃj. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ n.n.Dgï ªÉÄ£ï¤AzÀ SÁAiÀÄA ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀASÁå¢üPÀ ªÀPïðªÉÄ£ï ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ «°Ã£ÀUÉƽ¹ ¢: 01.11.1987 jAzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ SÁAiÀÄA £ËPÀgÀgÁV £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃj. ¢: 01.11.1987 gÀAzÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ SÁAiÀÄA ¥Àr¹zÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è 6 d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ ¥ÀÅgÁªÉUÉƸÀÌgÀ "¸ÀPÁðj QjAiÀÄ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ±Á¯É, £Él̯ï" ¤AzÀ ¤ÃrzÀ ±Á¯Á ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÉêÁ ¥ÀŸÀÛPÀzÀ°è d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ FªÀgÉUÀÆ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉ¢gÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À°è¹zÀ ±Á¯Á ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ §AzÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(D ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ.¸ÀA) PÀ«¥À椤, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ F PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ vÀ¤SÉUÉƼÀ¥Àr¹zÁUÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀlÖ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 ªÀÄÄSÉÆåÃ¥ÁzsÁåAiÀÄgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄÄ £ÀPÀ° JAzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄÄ £ÀPÀ° JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ £ÉêÀÄPÀUÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹ vÀ¥ÀÅà ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zÀÄåZÀÒQÛ ªÀÄAqÀ½ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉêÁ(£ÀqÀvÉ) ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ - 1988 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3 (i) & (iii) gÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÀ NzÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 33 C£ÀħAzsÀ "©" gÀ (v) gÀ°è ¤«ÄäAzÀ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉAiÀiÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ¸À¯ÁVzÉ." 18. The enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the petitioner had produced a fake transfer certificate for the purpose of recording his date of birth in the service register. The enquiry officer recorded several facts which establish beyond doubt that the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner was fake. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the report of the enquiry officer. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority of compulsorily retiring this petitioner from service was also just and proper. However, the penalty order was not challenged by the employer - respondent Nos.1 and 2. In an appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority is bound to consider whether the procedure prescribed in the regulations is complied and - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 whether non compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or has resulted in failure of justice and whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are justified and also whether the penalty imposed is excessive or inadequate. If it is inadequate the appellate authority shall after consultation with the board if necessary, pass orders either setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority or reducing or confirming or enhancing the penalty or remitting the case to the authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. However, this is subject to condition that the appellate authority shall not impose any enhanced penalty unless the appellant is given an opportunity to make any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty. When an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority cannot fall back upon Rule 27 and contend that the appellate authority has power to enhance the sentence in the appeal filed by the petitioner as if the board had filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. The power of an appellate authority and reviewing authority are different and distinct and arise in its different contexts. In the case on hand, the respondent No.1 did not - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 provide any opportunity to the petitioner to represent against any enhanced penalty. On the other hand, while considering appeal filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has exercised power of review under Rule 27 and has modified and enhanced the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, the exercise of the power by the appellate authority falls foul of the provisions of the KPTCL Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987. 19. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authority warrants interference. Hence, the following order: ORDER i. This writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii. The impugned order bearing No. Ah Im(V)/He Ah Sa/3390-94, dated.12.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 is set aside and the order bearing No. Ka Ni EM Le Ah / He Sa/ 400KV/ Tha/2019-20/Ka/627-33, passed by the respondent No.4 is restored. As a result, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:11299 WP No. 51953 of 2019 benefits, which shall be settled within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55