- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48683 WP No. 40154 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.40154 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING WAREHOUSING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION(REGD), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SOMASHEKAR S/O SHIVAPPA GANJI, 47, PRIME ROSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. 2. C.M. KARKI ASST. MANAGER (WARE HOUSEMAN), KSWC, S/O CHANDRASHEKAR MALLAPA KARKI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, C/O ANAND KALAWADA, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD - 580004. 3. T. BASAVARAJU MANAGER (WAREHOUSEMAN), KSWC, S/O D. THONDACHARA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.41, GETTIGERE 3RD STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560098. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48683 WP No. 40154 of 2014 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANDEEP S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (POLICEY & FCI), DEPT. OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, GOVT.OF INDIA, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KADHYA SADANA, 16-20, BARA KAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI - 110001. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 4. GENERAL MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NO.10, MAIN ROAD, EAST END, JAYANAGAR 4TH "T" BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560041. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48683 WP No. 40154 of 2014 5. KARNATAKA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD., 43, PRIMA ROSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. JAGADISH BALIGA, CGSC FOR R1; SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R3; SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES-CUM-ENQUIRY REPORTS DATED 19.03.2012 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND NOTICES-CUM-ENQUIRY REPORTS DATED 19.03.2012 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A1). AND QUASH THE RECOVERY ORDER DATED 28.12.2013 (VIDE ANNEXURE-B) AND RECOVERY ORDERS DATED 28.11/12.2013 (VIDE ANNEXURE-B1). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the Notices-cum-Enquiry reports dated 19.03.2012 (Annexure-A and A1) and the Recovery Orders dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48683 WP No. 40154 of 2014 8.2.2013 (Annexure-B and B1) issued by the respondent-Corporation. 2. Heard Sri. Sandeep S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri. N. Jagadish Baliga, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1; Sri. Srinivasa Murthy S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 4; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State and Sri. Sangamesh G. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 3. Sri. Sandeep S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure-D) passed in W.P. No. 5558 of 2007, wherein this Court had categorically directed the respondent-Corporation to proceed with the enquiry initiated against its employees except in respect of the charge relating to storage loss due to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48683 WP No. 40154 of 2014 dryage. He therefore contended, by referring to the imputation of Charge No.1 at Annexures-A and A1, that the respondent-Corporation has no jurisdiction to reiterate the very same charge against the present petitioners. 4. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State sought to justify the impugned notices and argued that this Court ought not to interfere with the Notices-cum-Enquiry reports, as the petitioners are required to appear before the Enquiry Officer to answer the charges levelled against them. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, I have carefully examined Charge No.1 in Annexures-A and A1, which pertains to the loss caused on account of dryage of Maize. In this backdrop, the operative portion of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48683 WP No. 40154 of 2014 order dated 14.08.2008 passed in W.P.No.5558 of 2007 (Annexure-D), reads as under: "ORDER (1) Writ petition is allowed; (2) A direction is issued to the first respondent to complete the economic costing of maize for KMS 2005- 06 and make payments accordingly, to the 5th respondent for the period KMS 200-05 as well as 2005-06 within a period of six months from today. (3) The 5th respondent is at liberty to proceed with the enquiry initiated against the employees of the first petitioner except the charge regarding storage loss due to dryage. (4) No costs." 6. Taking into consideration the findings recorded therein, wherein liberty was reserved to the respondent-Corporation to proceed with the enquiry except in respect of the charge relating to storage loss of Maize due to dryage, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The charges - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48683 WP No. 40154 of 2014 levelled against the petitioners as per Annexures-A and A1 fall squarely within the category of charges that this Court had earlier held could not be levelled against the employees of the Corporation, including the present petitioners. 7. In view of the above, the following order is passed: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) The impugned Notices-cum-Enquiry reports dated 19.03.12 produced at Annexures-A and A1 and the Recovery Orders dated 8.12.2013 issued pursuant thereto at Annexures-B and B1 are hereby set aside. iii) It is open to the respondent-Corporation to conduct an enquiry, if any, in accordance with - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48683 WP No. 40154 of 2014 law, in respect of charges other than the charge relating to storage loss due to dryage of maize. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15