- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48274 WP No. 6934 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 6934 OF 2018 (S-DE) BETWEEN: SMT. B.K. MEERA W/O SHIRIKANTESHWARA S AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS CHIEF MANAGER (FINANCE) THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, 7/A, 6TH FLOOR, STC TRADE CENTRE, NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR JAWAHAR VYAPARBHAWAN, TOLSTOY MARG NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR PERSONNEL AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., JAWAHAR VYAPARBHAWAN TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48274 WP No. 6934 of 2018 3. THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., JAWAHAR VYAPARBHAWAN, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 4. SRI DURGA DATT LOHANI FLAT NO.A-12 PLOT NO.3, SECTOR-13, AYUDH VIHAR DWARAKA NEW DELHI - 110 075. 5. THE UNION OF INDIA & DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. G. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI. A.P. PILAKESHI, CGC FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE DTD14.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 [ANNEXURE-A] IMPUGNED INQUIRY REPORT DTD17.1.2017 SUBMITTED AND SIGNED BY THE R-4 ON 17.1.2018 [ANNEXURE-B] AND IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD29.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-3 [ANNEXURE-C] AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48274 WP No. 6934 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following prayers: "a) Call for records from the respondents. b) Issue writ or order quashing the impugned memorandum of Articles of Charge dated 14.03.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent (Annexure- A), impugned inquiry report dated 17.01.2017 bearing No.DDL/STC/17(2) submitted and signed by the 4th respondent on 17.01.2018(Annexure-B) and impugned notice dated 29.01.2018 bearing No.FNo.STC/C.O/VIG/01007/2017/58 issued by the 3rd respondent (Annexure-C), in the interest of justice and equity. c) Pass any other order including the cost of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is working as Assistant Manager (Finance) in respondent No.1-Corporation and she was further promoted as Chief Manager (Finance) vide order dated 10.05.2016. Respondent No.2 issued a Memorandum of Charges on 14.03.2017 under Rule 27 of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48274 WP No. 6934 of 2018 Rules, 1975, alleging that the petitioner facilitated payment of inflated bills, unduly influenced, benefited the society and other three tiny charges leveled against her. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges leveled against her by submitting a reply on 12.04.2017. Respondent No.4 appointed an enquiring authority to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer has submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-C forwarded the enquiry report to the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to submit any representation or submissions. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition contending that the enquiry report lacks bonafide. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has no authority to issue Annexure-C and the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction. Hence, on these grounds prays to allow the writ petition. 4. The respondents filed a statement of objections contending that the State Trading Corporation of India Limited - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48274 WP No. 6934 of 2018 Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 was amended and Director(Personnel) is the Appointing Authority and is also a Disciplinary Authority. It is contended that Annexure-C is only an intimation to the petitioner regarding the findings of the enquiry report. It is contended that the petitioner did not make any representation or submissions to Annexure-C. Annexure-C is only an intimation to the petitioner regarding the enquiry report and the present writ petition is premature. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss this writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 has no authority to issue Annexure-C. Annexure-C issued by respondent No.3 is without any authority. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition. He further submits that if the Court dismissed the writ petition, liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to make a representation or reply to the enquiry report. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48274 WP No. 6934 of 2018 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the petitioner submits representation or reply to the enquiry report, respondent No.2 who is a Disciplinary Authority will consider the representation/reply and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is working in the respondent-Corporation and certain allegations were made against the petitioner. It was ordered to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer after conducting an enquiry submitted a report. Respondent No.3 has forwarded the enquiry report requesting her to submit the submission/representation to the said enquiry report. The petitioner instead of replying to Annexure-C filed this writ petition. 10. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature. The Disciplinary Authority has not passed any order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48274 WP No. 6934 of 2018 on the enquiry report. Further, respondent No.3 has forwarded the enquiry report to the petitioner vide Annexure-C. Ultimately, respondent No.2 is the Disciplinary Authority who will take an appropriate decision on the enquiry report after considering the representation/submission, if submitted by the petitioner. As observed above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature, I do not find any grounds to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation or submission to the enquiry report to respondent No.2 within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter, respondent No.2 is directed to pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the representation or submission submitted by the petitioner. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48274 WP No. 6934 of 2018 In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2022, does not survives for consideration. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15