- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32480 WP No. 35779 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 35779 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI K M KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE MUNIVENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RETIRED STORE KEEPER GRADE- II OF KPTCL R/AT NO. 454 - 15, 2ND MAIN ROAD BHAVINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 019 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560009. 2. THE DIRECTOR (A & R) AND ALSO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES DATED 17/09/2016 BEARING NO. KPTCL/B53/41117(A)/ 2013-14 (ANNEXURE-E), BEARING NO. KPTCL/B53/41117(B)/2013- 14 (ANNEXURE-F) AND BEARING NO. KPTCL/B53/41117(C)/2013-14 (ANNEXURE-G) ISSUED BY THE R2 AND THE ORDER DATED 03/01/2024 BEARING NO. KPTCL/B55/B53/41117/2013-14 (ANNEXURE-V) ALONG WITH THE ENQUIRY REPORT (ANNEXURE-W) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32480 WP No. 35779 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 03.01.2024 vide Annexure-V, whereby the respondent has appointed the new inquiry officer to conduct the departmental inquiry and Annexure-W dated 17.08.2024 issuing final show cause notice for recovery of the loss caused to the Corporation. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Store Keeper and retired from the service on 28.02.2013 (Annexure-A), on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the departmental inquiry has been initiated on 17.09.2016 (Annexure-E), on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. On 20.07.2021, one Sri M.Ramachandra, a retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the inquiry officer. On the allegation of misappropriation, a joint inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and others. On 21.04.2022, the inquiry officer – Sri M.Ramachadnra submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner and others has not been proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority did not - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32480 WP No. 35779 of 2024 accept the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer and passed an order for further inquiry and appointed Sri Basavaraj S.Tadahal as the second inquiry officer. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation and appeared before the inquiry officer. The second inquiry officer submitted a report that the charges levelled against the petitioner and others have been proved. Pursuant to that, the impugned notice vide Annexure-W was issued. Being aggrieved by the impugned show cause notice vide Annexure-W and appointment of the second inquiry officer vide Annexure-V, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the first inquiry officer submitted a report stating that the charges against the petitioner and others has not been proved. As per Clause 11(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ Classification, Disciplinary, Control and Appeal Regulations, 1987 (for short, ‘the Regulations’), there is no power for the disciplinary authority to appoint a second inquiry officer. If it disagrees with the findings of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32480 WP No. 35779 of 2024 inquiry officer on any of the articles of charges, it can record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.21160/2017 disposed of on 08.07.2021. (ii) Secondly, since the appointment of the second inquiry officer is contrary to Clause 11(A) of the Regulations, the consequential notice issued pursuant to the report submitted by the second inquiry officer vide Annexure-W is unsustainable. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Corporation raised the following contentions: (i) Firstly, the first inquiry officer submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee has not been proved. By exercising the power under Clause 11(A) of the Regulations, the Board disagreed with the finding of the first inquiry officer and took a decision to appoint a second inquiry officer for further inquiry. Thereafter, the second inquiry officer has been appointed, notice has been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32480 WP No. 35779 of 2024 issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply and participated in the inquiry proceedings. The second inquiry officer Sri Basavaraj S.Tadahal, a retired District and Sessions Judge submitted a report stating that the charges are proved. Thereafter, the second show-cause has been issued vide Annexure-W. But the petitioner, instead of submitting the reply, has approached this Court. Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 6. The respondent – Corporation has initiated a joint inquiry against the petitioner and the other employees of the Corporation and appointed one Sri M.Ramachandra, a retired District and Sessions Judge, as the inquiry officer. He submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved. Under Clause 11(A) of the Regulations, the disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority, may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, disagree with the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer. On the finding available in the inquiry report, it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32480 WP No. 35779 of 2024 can impose a penalty or can direct for further inquiry. In this case, the respondent – Corporation has disagreed with the inquiry report submitted by the first inquiry officer one M.Ramachandra, a retired District and Sessions Judge. By exercising the power under Clause 11(A) of the Regulations to conduct further inquiry, it has appointed a new inquiry officer one Basavaraj S.Tadahal, a retired District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner has participated in the inquiry. Based on the previous inquiry, evidence and the documents, the second inquiry officer submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner and others are proved. Thereafter, the inquiry report has been accepted by the disciplinary authority, and issued a notice vide Annexure-W. On going through the records produced by the parties, it is very clear that the second inquiry officer conducted further inquiry on the basis of the evidence recorded by the first inquiry officer and it is not a de-novo inquiry as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, there is no illegality or error in the impugned order passed by the respondent – Corporation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32480 WP No. 35779 of 2024 7. In the case relied upon by the petitioner in W.P.No.21160/2017, the disciplinary authority did not disagree with the findings of the inquiry officer but secured a separate report from an investigating officer and proposed a penalty for recovery. Therefore, that case is not applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file objections to the notice vide Annexure-W, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are left open. In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39