1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

WRIT PETITION NO.10457 OF 2016 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MD.RAFATHULLA KHAN,

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

S/O. A.MAHABOOB KHAN,

RESIDING AT NO.6,

BEHIND WATER/WORKS BUND,

VIDYANAGAR,

TUMKUR-572103.

&.PETITIONER

(BY SRI. G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI.MUKKANNAPPA S.B , ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE MANAGER DIRECTOR,

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY

SUPPLY COMPANY

LIMITED, K.R.CIRCLE,

BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)

BANGALORE ELECTRICTY

SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,

CHITRADURGA REGION,

CHITRADURGA-577501.

3.

THE SUPERINTENDENT

ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY

SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED,

2

KOTITOPU ROAD,

TUMKUR- 572101.

&.RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2

R3-SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN

REPRESENTATION DATED: 7.10.2013 AND 22.1.2015

SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEX-G & H

REGARDING SETTLEMENT OF ALL HIS RETIREMENTAL

BENEFITS

FORTHWITH

UNDER

THE

FACTS

AND

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of

mandamus directing the respondents to consider the

representations

dated

07.10.2013

and

22.01.2015

Annexures-G and H regarding settlement of his terminal

benefits.

2.

Heard

Sri.G.S.Naveen

Kumar,

learned

counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija Patil, learned

counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner retired as Junior Engineer (Electrical)

from the respondent-Corporation on attaining the age of

superannuation on 31.03.2013. When the petitioner was

in service, show cause notice dated 11.09.2012 was

issued

alleging

certain

dereliction

of

duty

and

misconduct. The petitioner said to have submitted reply

(Annexure-B) dated 10.11.2012. Thereafter, it is stated

that

the

respondent

by

order

dated

30.03.2013

appointed an Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting

Officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. But

thereafter, enquiry is not conducted by the Enquiry

Officer. The petitioner made representation to the

respondent-Board to settle his pensionary benefits.

Considering the request, the respondent-Board by Office

Memorandum dated 03.03.2014, released 60% of the

pension.

A

copy

of

Office

Memorandum

dated

03.03.2014 is made available during the course of

hearing. But the terminal benefits are not released to

4

the petitioner. It is his submission that even though

Enquiry Officer was appointed during Mar-2013, no

enquiry is taken place till this date nor terminal benefits

are settled.

4.

Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that enquiry could not go

on for the reason that the Enquiry Officer appointed

initially retired from service and the next Enquiry Officer

was transferred. Hence, enquiry is yet to be completed.

Learned

counsel

also

submits

that

by

Office

Memorandum

dated

03.03.2014,

the

respondents

released 60% of the pension of the petitioner.

5.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner

retired from service of respondent-Board on attaining

the age of superannuation on 31.03.2013. It is also an

admitted fact that show cause notice was issued to the

petitioner as per Annexure-A dated 11.09.2012 and

under order 30.03.2013, Enquiry Officer was appointed

to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner.

5

But, as admitted by the learned counsel for the

respondents, enquiry proceedings has not commenced

till today. Even though the show cause notice is dated

1