Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25987 (KAR)

SRI DILEEP C R v. THE KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

WP/12514/2022 · 2026-06-24

M G S Kamal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31560 WP No. 12514 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 12514 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI DILEEP C R S/O RAMASWAMY C.K., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, O AND M - II SECTION CHANNAPATTANA URBAN SUB DIVISION CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 4TH FLOOR, 5TH PHASE M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPT BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. SMT NIRMALA W/O RAMESHGOWDA MAJOR R/A HANUMANTHANAGARA HONNIGANAHALLI CHANNAPATTANA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. 3. SRI C N SHIVAKUMAR Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31560 WP No. 12514 of 2022 S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER MAJOR ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM URBAN SUB DIVISION CHANNAPATTANA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. 4. SRI RAJESH S/O V MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SECRETARY GRADE-I VANDARAGUPPE GRAMAPANCHYATH KASABA HOBLI CHANNAPATTANA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S.N. RAJESH,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. B.L. SANJEEV., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED.25.04.2022 MADE IN H.R.C.NO.3648/10/29/2020 (B2) PASSED BY THE HONBLE MEMBER OF THE R-1 COMMISSION VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2022 passed in HRC No.3648/10/29/2020(B- 2), in terms of which the respondent No.1-Human Rights - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31560 WP No. 12514 of 2022 Commission has issued recommendation to collect certain amount as compensation and also had directed the concerned authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and all the persons involved. 2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), O & M-II Section at Channapattana Urban Sub-Division, disconnected the power supply to the shop and house of respondent No.2 unilaterally and arbitrarily in violation of basic rights. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had no role to play on his own except following the instructions of his higher-ups. He submits that the recommendation is disproportionate and he would be unnecessarily exposed to the said proceedings for no fault of his. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the order is recommendary in nature. Petitioner has all opportunities to represent and defend his case as and when the proceedings is being initiated. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31560 WP No. 12514 of 2022 5. Heard. Perused the records. 6. Unnumbered para 2 of page 8 of the impugned order reads as under; "ೕ ೕ  ಆ , ಸ ಾಯಕ ಇಂಯ () ಾ. ಮತು ಾ. ಘಟಕ-2, ೆ..ಕಂ ಚನ!ಪಟ#ಣ ನಗರ ಉಪ (ಾಗ, )ಾನವ ಹಕು,ಗಳ ಸಂರ./ಾ ಅ1ಯಮ, 1993ರ ಕಲಂ 16 ರ3ಯ4 ೕ3ದ 6ೋ8ೕ9ೆ ೕ3ದ ವರ/ೆಯ4 ತನ! :ೕ;ಾ1ಾ<ಗ=ಾದ ೕ  ಎ? ವಕು)ಾ , ಸ ಾಯಕ ಾಯ@Aಾ@ಹಕ ಇಂಯ () ರವರು ದೂರುBಾರCಾದ ೕಮD ಮ@;ಾ ೋಂ ;ೇE ರ:F 9ೌಡ ರವರ IಾJವರಗ=ಾದ ಆ ಆ ಸಂKೆL: ಎM-30338, N-2560 ಮತು 4059985951 IಾJವರಗಳ ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ವನು! ಕ3ತ9ೊQ¸ÀÄವAvÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÁܪÀgÀUÀ¼À «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß PÀrvÀUÉÆ½¹gÀĪÀ ವರಗಳನು! ಸ ಾಯಕ ಾಯ@Aಾ@ಹಕ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («)gÀªÀjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß M¦àPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. vÀªÀÄä «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ RೊSೆಯ4 ಸ4 ಪತಗಳ ಪಾರ IಾJವರ ಸಂKೆL: ಎM-30338 ರ ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ವನು! 6ಾಂಕ 05-10-2020, IಾJವರ ಸಂKೆL:N- 2560 ರ ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ವನು! 6ಾಂಕ 17-10-2020 ರಂದು ಾಗೂ IಾJವರ ಸಂKೆL: 4059985951 ರ ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ವನು! 6ಾಂಕ 01-09-2020 ರ ಪತಗಳ ಪಾರ ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ ಪTೆಯುAಾಗ Bಾಖ;ೆಗಳV ಸೂಕAಾWರುವXಲ4Aೆಂದು ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ವನು! ಕ3ತ9ೊQರುವXದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತBೆ. ಆZೕಗದ [ಾರ/ಾ1ಾ<ಗಳ ಮುಂBೆ ದೂರುBಾರರ ಮಗ6ಾದ ಪಜ]M 9ೌಡ  ಆ ಅವರ ೆಸ<ನ4 ೊಸBಾW ೕರು ಸರಬCಾಜು )ಾಡುವ ಅಂಗ39ೆ ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ೆ, ಅ@ ಸ4ದ :ೕCೆ9ೆ Sಾನು ಸJಳೆ, ೋW ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ ೕಡುವ ಬ9ೆ^ ಸJಳ ಪ<ೕಲ6ೆ )ಾ3 ಕಡತದ4ದ_ ಅ@, 9ಾಮ ಪಂ[ಾ`D ೕ3ರುವ ಜನರM ;ೈಸ?b ಮತು ಅ@Bಾರರ cೕdೋಗಳನು! ಗಮ ಮಂಜೂCಾD9ಾW Sಾ6ೇ eಾರಸುb )ಾ3ರುSೇ6ೆ. ಆ ಬ9ೆ^ ದೂರ@Bಾರರು ಇ;ಾKೆ9ೆ ಹಣವನು! ಾವDದ ನಂತರ ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ವನು! ಕgಸ;ಾWತು. ನಂತರ ಎ.ಇ.ಇ.() ರವರ )ೌhಕ ಆBೇಶದ :ೕCೆ9ೆ ಸಂಪಕ@ವನು! ಕ3ತ9ೊQರುSೇ6ೆ. ಅಂದCೆ, ದೂರ@Bಾರರು ದುLO ಸಂಪಕ@ ಪTೆಯುAಾಗ ಸ4ದ Bಾಖ;ೆಗಳV ಸೂಕAಾWರುವXಲ4 ಎನು!ವ ಅವರ ೇQೆಯು ನಂಬಲಹ@AಾWರುವXಲ4". - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31560 WP No. 12514 of 2022 7. The response found in aforesaid paragraph is reiterated in the writ petition at para 11, which reads as under; "11. That the higher authorities vide intimation dtd.14.10.2020 a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-M intimated the son of 2nd respondent to co- operate for removing of energy meter. The higher authority vide communication dtd.17.10.2020, a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-N directed the petitioner herein to disconnect the power supply in respect of P-2560 installation and accordingly petitioner herein complied the direction of his superior authorities and after disconnecting the power supply submitted a report dtd.17.10.2020, a copy of the same is produced as Annexure-N1." 8. The act of purported disconnecting the power supply is admitted, though, blame is sought to be shrugged simple imprisonment for, on the premise of he merely carrying out the instructions of his higher-ups. 9. In the light of the aforesaid admission on the part of the petitioner, no error can be found in the recommendation being made by the respondent No.1. It is for the concerned authority to determine and fix the liability if any, on the petitioner looking at his role and responsibilities vis-à-vis his post. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31560 WP No. 12514 of 2022 10. It is too premature, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to interfere at this juncture. 11. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all such grounds and defence as may be available and sought to be taken in the enquiry proceedings/or decision proceedings that may be initiated against him, petition is disposed of. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42