- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11031 OF 2025 (S-DIS) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 11020 OF 2025 (S-RES) IN WP No. 11031/2025 BETWEEN: K.M. VEDAMURTHY S/O K.S. MAHESHWARAPPA, C/O BHUVANESHWERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS LINE MAN, C.T. KERE SECTION, RURAL SUB-DIVISION -01 BESCOM TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT RESIDING AT, BENAKA 2ND CROSS, NEAR NAVAGRAHA PARK, TUNGABHADRA BLOCK, TUDA LAYOUT SIRA GATE, TUMKUR – 572 102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M. J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICTIY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM), REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) TUMKUR DIVISION OFFICE, KOTHITHOPU, TUMKUR – 572 101 2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL), (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD), Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.KANIEO (VI) LESA/SALESA/HISA(SI)/2024-25/CYS-88 DATED 31.12.2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-Z WITH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING MONETARY BENEFITS AND ETC., IN WP NO. 11020/2025 BETWEEN: K. B. KUMAR S/O K.S. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS LINE MAN CITY, SUB-DIVISION-3, KYATSANDRA SECTION, BESCOM TUMKUR, RESIDING AT SRI SHIVAKUMARESHWARA NILAYA, 4TH MAIN, I STAGE, BASAVESHWARA EXTENSION, KYATSANDRA, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 10 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. T. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M. J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM), REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) TUMKUR DIVISION OFFICE, KOTHITHOPU, TUMKUR – 572 101 2. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL), (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KARNATAKA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 ELECTRICITY BOARD), REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIRANGA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO. KANIEO (VI) LESA/SALESA/HISA(SI)/2024- 25/CYS-87 DATED 31.12.2024 PASSED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-Z WITH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING MONETARY BENEFITS, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In W.P.No.11031/2025, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other nature to quash the order No.Kanieo (Vi) Lesa/salesa/hisa(si)/2024-25/LYS- 88 dated 31.12.2024 passed by the 1st respondent Annexure-Z with all the consequential benefits including monetary benefits. ii) Issue any other order or direction or grant any relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, including the costs of this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 2. In W.P.No.11020/2025, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other nature to quash the order No.Kanieo (vi) Lesa/salesa/hisa(si)/2024-25/CYS- 87 dated 31.12.2024 passed by the 1st respondent Annexure-Z with all the consequential benefits including monetary benefits. ii) Issue any other order or ii) Issue any other order or direction or grant any relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, including the costs of this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. In both petitions, heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though several facts and circumstances have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, suffice it to state that in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.15829/2024 c/w. W.P.No.158/2024 filed by the petitioners herein, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had set aside the order of dismissal and remitted the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, after issuing a second show cause notice to the petitioners - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 and thereafter, proceeding further, in accordance with law. The aforesaid order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of K.M. Vedamurthy and K.B. Kumar Vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (BESCOM) - W.P.No.15829/2024 C/W. W.P.No.15833/2024 dated 17.07.2024 reads as under: “The petitioners are aggrieved by the corresponding dismissal Orders dated 07.06.2024 which are produced as Annexure-V in the respective writ petitions. It is undisputed that the departmental proceedings are commenced against the petitioners with the imputation that they have produced false Certificates to secure permanent employment with - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27453 WP No. 15829 of 2024 c/w WP No.15833 of 2024 the respondents though they had not completed the qualifying age as of the date of their appointment. Further, with the initiation of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has filed his Report in both the corresponding proceedings stating that the imputation against the petitioners are proved and the Disciplinary Authority viz., the first respondent has issued the impugned orders for petitioners' dismissal from service. 2. The present proceedings against the petitioners indisputably have a backdrop. Both these petitioners were dismissed from service way back in the year 2009, but ultimately, with the Division Bench's Orders in the Writ Appeal Nos. 853/20211 and 790/20212, the petitioners are reinstated, and fresh inquiries are initiated in the year 2022. Sri C M Nagabhushan, the learned counsel for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 petitioners, canvasses the following two grounds submits insofar as the present petitions: [a] The petitioners have not been given due opportunity to cross examine the respondents' witnesses or to lead evidence. The petitioners have not been furnished with all the necessary documents, inasmuch as the Vigilance Cell's Report which is the basis for initiation of the proceedings is not furnished to the petitioners. [b] The first respondent - Disciplinary Authority ought to have given second Show Cause Notice to the petitioners before proceeding to accept the Inquiry Report and passing orders for petitioners' dismissal from service. 3. Sri B L Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the respondents, is heard in the light of these submissions, and when queried, Sri B L Sanjeev cannot dispute that the first respondent has not issued second Show Cause Notice. However, the learned counsel strenuously contends that the petitioners cannot complain about the denial of opportunity to cross examine the witnesses or lead evidence while also stoutly refuting the canvass that the relevant documents have not been furnished to the petitioners. In fact, the learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioners have completely participated in the inquiry and have filed their respective written submissions. 4. This Court must observe that there is cause for interference with the impugned orders if the second Show Cause Notice, as is compulsory in law, is not issued. This Court must also observe that the proceedings must be restored to the stage of issuance of second Show Cause Notice to the petitioners with due opportunity to respond to the Inquiry Officer's Report, and that the first respondent, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 while considering the petitioners' response to such second Show Cause Notice, must also examine the merits of the petitioners' grievance that they have not been given opportunity to cross examine the corresponding witnesses and that they have not had the opportunity to lead evidence or that the relevant document/s are not furnished. 5. This Court is of the considered view that such consideration would be within the ambit of the scope of the second Show Cause Notice. With these conclusions, the next question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners must be reinstated subject to the outcome of issuance of such second Show Cause Notice and the consideration thereof. Sri B L Sanjeev submits that the settled law is that when the Court or Tribunal interferes with the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings on the ground that due opportunity is not extended or that there is violation of principles of natural justice, the inquiry must begin at the relevant stage and there cannot be any reinstatement. 6. In this regard, Sri B L Sanjeev proposes to rely upon the exposition of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others v. A. Masilamani'3 and upon the exposition in Paragraph No.16 of the Apex Court’s decision State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Rajit Singh4 which read as under: "It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and conclude the same." 7. In this case this Court is not interfering with the Inquiry proceedings. This Court's interference in this case is with the Disciplinary Authority’s orders on the limited ground that the second Show Cause Notice is not issued leaving open the questions whether there was a due opportunity, or whether there is violation of principles of natural justice, to be examined by the Disciplinary Authority. 8. This Court is not persuaded to opine that the petitioners must be denied the advantage of reinstatement in the light of the afore, and the fact that there are earlier proceedings resulting with the petitioners’ reinstatement after the Division Bench’ order and that there could be expeditious conclusion of the proceedings and that the respondents can issue Show Cause Notice with reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to respond. Further, given the conclusion of the proceedings almost within two months, the petitioners will not be entitled for any back wages between the period from the date of the impugned order to the date of reinstatement. Hence, the following: ORDER [a] The petitions are allowed in part quashing the respective dated 07.06.2024 [Annexure-V] in each of the petitions with liberty to the common first respondent to issue second Show Cause notice to the petitioners with reasonable opportunity to respond to the inquiry report. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 [b] The first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioners subject to such proceedings, and the first respondent will be at liberty to complete the proceedings in an expedited manner.” 5. Subsequently, in pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, respondent No.1 issued a second final show-cause notice dated 24.09.2024, to which the petitioners submitted a request for extension of time dated 04.11.2024 seeking extension of time by a period of 30 days from that day. However, the petitioners having submitted a detailed reply dated 07.11.2024, respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the petitioners from service on the sole ground that the show cause notice called upon the petitioners to submit a reply within a period of seven days and the petitioners having not submitted reply within seven days and on the primary ground that the petitioners had not submitted replies within a period of seven days as required in the show-cause notices and consequently, proceeded to pass the impugned orders, which are assailed in the present petitions. 6. It is a matter of record and undisputed fact that the petitioners submitted request for extension of time on 04.11.2024 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 as can be seen at Sl.No.30 of the documents referred to in the impugned order at Annexure-Z dated 31.12.2024. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, on 07.11.2024, the petitioners submitted detailed replies, which have not been considered by respondent No.1 in the impugned order. 7. Under these circumstances, in order to enable respondent No.1 to consider the reply dated 07.11.2024 submitted by the petitioners and pass orders afresh, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders at Annexure- Z. Dated 31.12.2024 and remit the matters back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration fresh, bearing in mind the earlier order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.M. Vedamurthy and K.B. Kumar Vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (BESCOM) - W.P.No.15829/2024 C/W. W.P.No.15833/2024 dated 17.07.2024 and in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petitions are allowed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19074 WP No. 11031 of 2025 C/W WP No. 11020 of 2025 ii) In both the petitions, the impugned orders at Annexure-Z dated 31.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1 are hereby aside. iii) The matters are remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to submit documents, pleadings etc, before respondent No.1, who shall consider the same, provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and proceed further, in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1