- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 100058 OF 2025 (S-PRO) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 100059 OF 2025(S-PRO), WRIT APPEAL NO. 100061 OF 2025(S-PRO), WRIT APPEAL NO. 100062 OF 2025(S-RES) IN WA NO.100058 OF 2025: BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL), R/BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. 2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HUMAN RESOURCE), KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANIRUDH A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: DATTATREYA S GUDDALLI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT OCC. ASST. ENGINEER TECHNICAL, R/O.C/O. UMESH ARAMANI, NO.71, LAXMIVAN, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580031. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 29.11.2024 IN W.P.NO.105510/2024 (S-PRO) & ETC., IN WA NO.100059 OF 2025: BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL), R/BY THE MANAGIND DIRECTOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. 2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, R/BY THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HUMAN RESOURCE), KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANIRUDH A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: UMESH K ARAMANI AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. ASST. ACCOUNTS OFFICER, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, R/O C/O UMESH ARAMANI, NO.71, LAXMIVAN, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580031. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 29.11.2024 IN W.P. NO.105509/2024 (S-PRO) & ETC., IN WA NO.100061 OF 2025: BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, R/BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. 2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, R/BY THE DIRECTOR (RESOURCE), KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANIRUDH A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER AND: SHREEDHAR NAGAPPA GOUDAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT OCC. ASST. ENGINEER ELECTRICAL, R/O C/O UMESH ARAMANI, #NO.70, LAXMIVAN, SHIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580031. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED. 29.11.2024 IN W.P. NO.105521/2024 (S-PRO) & ETC., IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 100062 OF 2025: BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL), R/BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009. 2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, R/BY THE DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HUMAN RESOURCE), KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGULURU-560009. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANIRUDH A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: PRABHUHISINGH S/O GURRAPPA HAJERI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R/O C/O UMESH ARAMANI, NO.71, LAKSMI VAN, SHIROOR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580031. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 16.12.2024 IN W.P.NO.107440/2024 (S-RES) & ETC., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER THESE WRIT APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) 1. The above intra-Court appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, questioning the identical direction issued by learned Single Judge in WP Nos.105510/2024, 105509/2024, 105521/2024 & 107440/2024, directing the respondent/KPTCL to include the name of the petitioners in the list of promotion and to consider their cases for promotion without being influenced by the pendency of the criminal proceedings and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as they stood before the writ Court. The appellants were respondents and the respondent was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts are that, the petitioners, who are working as Assistant Engineer (Technical), Assistant Accounts Officer, Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Assistant Executive - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER Engineer respectively in the respondent/KPTCL, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with similar and identical relief seeking a writ of mandamus to consider their cases for promotion to the next higher cadre with all consequential benefits. It is the case of the petitioners that final promotion list was issued without considering their cases for promotion, due to mere pendency of criminal proceedings against them. It is further case of the petitioners that the criminal proceedings are pending for more than a decade and only on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings, the petitioners cannot be denied the promotion for ever. Learned Single Judge by different impugned orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions in respect of the petitioners, issued identical direction. The direction in one of the writ petitions i.e. WP No.105510/2024 reads as under: ”Writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent/KPTCL to include the name of the petitioner in the list of promotion for the post of Assistant Engineer(Electrical) (Diploma (KKR)) with effect from 26.6.2024 and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without being influenced by the pendency of the criminal prosecution and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent/KPTCL and learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Sri. Anirudh A. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the KPTCL would submit that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in placing reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of N.C. Krishne Gowda vs. Executive Engineer1 and issued direction to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher cadre. It is submitted that in the case of N.C. Krishne Gowda (supra), as on the date of DPC, the jurisdictional Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner therein and charge sheet was not filed in the criminal proceedings. In the instant case, it is submitted that charge sheet was filed against the petitioners in the year 2012 itself and as on the date of DPC, charge sheet was already filed in respect of each of the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that when the charge sheet is filed in criminal proceedings and when the charge memo is issued in departmental enquiry, a government servant or an employee would not be entitled for consideration of his/her case for promotion to the next higher cadre. Learned counsel 1 2024(2) AKR 756 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER for the appellant/KPTCL reiterates that as on the date of DPC, since charge sheet was already filed in criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners, the appellant/KPTCL rightly did not consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion. The learned counsel placing reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. K.V. Janakiraman2, submits that the petitioners would not be entitled for consideration of their cases for promotion. Thus, he prays for allowing the above writ appeals. 6. Per contra, Sri. S.B. Malligwad, learned counsel for the petitioners would support the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that though as on the date of DPC, charge sheet was filed in criminal cases pending against the petitioners, however, the criminal proceedings are pending for more than a decade. As such, learned Single Judge is justified in directing the respondent/KPTCL to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher cadre. Learned counsel would submit that only on the ground of criminal proceedings pending against employee, he/she cannot be ignored for promotion for ever. Learned counsel placing 2 (1991) 4 SCC 109 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal3, submits that taking note of the delayed criminal proceedings, the Court shall have to balance the situation and issue appropriate direction. Thus, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ appeals. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only point that would fall for our consideration in these appeals is, whether the learned Single Judge is justified in issuing direction to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher cadre? 8. Our answer to the above point would be in the “affirmative” for the following reasons: Undisputedly, the petitioners are working in the respondent/KPTCL in various positions. Admittedly, the criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioners since 11.10.2012 and for more than a decade. During the course of hearing, it is stated that the departmental enquiry was initiated 3 (1995) 2 SCC 570 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER on the same set of facts, wherein the petitioners are exonerated. No departmental enquiry was pending as on the date of DPC, which considered the case of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher cadre. 9. Mere pendency of the criminal proceedings may not be a ground to deny the promotion to an employee. The authorities shall have to consider longevity of the pendency of the criminal case and if the criminal case is pending for very long, such as a decade or more, the Court shall have to balance the equity between the parties. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chaman Lal Goyal (supra), while considering the question of delay in initiating or serving the charge memo in a departmental enquiry, observed that “how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the Court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER the totality of circumstances. In other words, the Court has to indulge in a process of balancing……….” 11. Normally, as held by the Apex Court in the case of K.V. Janakiraman (supra), sealed cover procedure shall be followed in respect of an employee against whom departmental enquiry is pending, at the stage of issuance of charge memo and where charge sheet is filed in criminal proceedings. If the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding is continued for very long time, then it is for the Courts to balance the situation and to direct appropriately either to conclude the enquiry within a time bound period or to direct the consideration of such employees’ cases for promotion. 12. In the instant case, since criminal proceeding is pending for more than 12 years, learned Single Judge exercising his judicious discretion has rightly directed the consideration of cases of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher cadre. We do not find any error or illegality in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the writ appeals. Accordingly, the above writ appeals stand dismissed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5111-DB WA No. 100058 of 2025 C/W WA No. 100059 of 2025 AND 2 OTHER All pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9