ORDER :

Petitioner in Writ Petition No.711 of 2014 calls in question the endorsement dated 24-01-2013 declining to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer from the date on which his juniors were promoted.

In Writ Petition No.10007 of 2020 the very petitioner calls in question an order of penalty imposed upon him on 18-07-2003 and seeks promotion to be granted with retrospective effect and for consequential benefits thereon.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petitions, as borne out from the pleadings in both the writ petitions, are as follows:-

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board (‘KEB’ for short) on 12-10-1988. On acquisition of graduation, he was transposed as Assistant Engineer on 26-09-1990. When the petitioner was working in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, owing to certain omissions and commissions, a charge sheet was issued against him on 17-07-2002 and a departmental inquiry thereon was conducted, which ended in imposition of penalty of ‘censure’ by an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 18-07-2003. After imposition of penalty of censure, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 30-09-2003 and not with retrospective effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted.

3. The petitioner gave plethora of representations seeking that he should be promoted with respective effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted. Those having not been considered, the petitioner had knocked the doors of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.9885 of 2012 which was disposed of on 02-04-2012 with a direction to the respondent to consider the representations given by the petitioner. It is pursuant to the said direction representations of the petitioner were considered and rejected by an order dated 24-01-2013. It is this order that is called in question in Writ Petition No.711 of 2014.

4. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner prefers another writ petition in Writ Petition No.10007 of 2020 wherein the petitioner, for the first time, calls in question the order of penalty of censure that was imposed upon him on 18-07-2003 and seeks a consequential relief of direction to the respondent to open the sealed cover and grant him promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits.

5. Heard Sri.Vijaya Kumar.V.B, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Harikrishna.S.Holla, learned counsel appearing for respondents in both the petitions.

6. Learned counsel Sri Vijaya Kumar appearing for the petitioner in both the cases would vehemently argue and contend that the petitioner was denied promotion on account of penalty of censure imposed upon him on 18-07-2003. The said penalty was imposed by an incompetent authority and, therefore, the penalty is void ab initio. Any penalty which is imposed by an incompetent authority is non est in the eye of law and can be challenged at any point of time, is the emphatic submission of the learned counsel.

7. On the other hand, Sri Harikrishna S.Holla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (‘KPTCL’ for short) would submit that the writ petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold, even without going into the merits, on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was imposed the penalty in the year 2003, but did not choose to challenge the same immediately, accepted the promotion that was granted, but went on giving representations for review of his promotion and for the first time in the year 2012 files a writ petition seeking consideration of his representation for review of promotion and does not challenge the penalty. The representation being rejected files the first writ petition in W.P.No.711/2014, again does not challenge the order