1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO.42439 OF 2016 (S-DE)

BETWEEN

D. VASUDEVA RAO

S/O LATE D.GOPALA RAO,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

WORKING AS PRODUCTION ENGINEER,

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.,

ENGINE DIVISION,

BENGALURU.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI M. RAGHAVENDRACHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO)

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.,

BENGALURU COMPLEX, (B.C),

BENGALURU-560 017.

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (G.M.)

ENGINE DIVISION,

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.,

BENGALURU-560 017.

3. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.,

BENGALURU-560 093.

2

….RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI N.S. NARASIMHASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY I.E.,

RESPONDENT 3 BEARING ORDER NO.E/P&A/617/2174/2007

DATED 21.11.2007 AND ETC.

IN THIS WRIT PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,

JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF

ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order

dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure-F) passed by the disciplinary

authority and order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-H) passed by

Appellate authority, dismissing the petitioner from service under

Rule 6(ii)(h) of the HAL Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules,

1984.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner is a

graduate in Electrical Engineering and appointed as Assistant

Engineer in the respondent-Establishment on 10.11.1976. The

respondent had given an opportunity to its employees to acquire

master degree to improve their career and to do better service in

the

respondent-Establishment.

Accordingly,

the

petitioner

3

approached

the

respondent-Establishment

to

pursue

Post

Graduation course “M.Tech” in Computer Application in industrial

Drives at M.S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bengaluru. The

plea made by the petitioner to the same was accepted by the

respondent-Establishment subject to terms and conditions as per

letter dated 02^nd December, 2004 (Annexure-A). It is the case of

the petitioner that, on account of lapse on the part of the

Principal of the M.S. Ramaiah Institute of Technology, the

petitioner was unable to complete the course and accordingly,

the petitioner made an application for rejoining to the

respondent-Establishment. It is further stated in the writ

petition that the respondent-Establishment, without accepting

the plea made by the petitioner, issued charge sheet dated 25^th

April, 2006 (Annexure-B) and accordingly, the petitioner has

been placed under suspension, pending enquiry. Proceedings of

the Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner

and enquiry report was filed before the Disciplinary Authority,

wherein, the finding was recorded that the charges leveled

against the petitioner was proved. Enquiry report is produced at

Annexure-D to the writ petition. Pursuant to the same, the

4

petitioner made reply dated 08.09.2007 (Annexure-E), denying

the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary

Authority, considering the findings recorded by the Enquiry

Officer, passed order dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure-F), dismissing

the petitioner from service. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner filed appeal to the Appellate Authority and the

Appellate Authority, by its order dated 08^th December, 2015,

confirmed order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-

H). Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is

filed.

3.

I have heard Sri M. Raghavendrachar, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.S.Narasimha

Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

4.

Sri M.Raghavendrachar, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner contended tha