IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

WRIT APPEAL No.3029 of 2019(S-DIS)

BETWEEN

1.

MANAGING DIRECTOR

BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK

NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED

NO.2 & 3, 1^ST STAGE, I PHASE

BTM LAYOUT, POST BOX NO.2924

NEAR JAL BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD

BANGALORE-560 029.

2.

THE GENERAL MANAGER

BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK

NOTE MUDRAN (P) LIMITED

MUDRANN NAGAR

MYSORE-560 003

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI R.V.S.NAIK, Sr. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND

V. MANIVANNAN

SON OF VEERARAGHAVAN

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.249

BELLAVATHA, RBI POST

MYSORE-570003

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.B. ONKARA, ADVOCATE)

2

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

IMPUNGED ORDER DATED 16.07.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED

SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.17877/2015 (S-DIS).

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner before this Court Bharatiya Reserve Bank

Note Mudran (P) Limited, a Company registered under the

Companies Act and controlled by the Government of India, has

filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the order dated

16.07.2019 passed in W.P. No.17877/2015 (V. Manivannan vs.

Managing Director, Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P)

Limited and another).

2.

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent-employee

was subjected to four Departmental Enquiries and four charge

sheets

dated

12.08.2013,

21.12.2013,

28.08.2014

and

20.09.2014 respectively were issued. Enquiry Officers were

appointed and the Enquiry Officers submitted reports holding

that charges were proved against the respondent-employee and

thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the Disciplinary

3

Authority. The undisputed facts reveal that the Disciplinary

Authority taking into account all the four Enquiry Reports has

passed a common order on 27.01.2015 and the common order

was subjected to judicial scrutiny by filing a writ petition. A

detailed and exhaustive reply was filed in the mater by the

present appellant-company before the learned Single Judge.

The respondent-employee raised an important ground that

whether there can be a common order in respect four

departmental enquiries that too after taking into account the

past conduct of the respondent-employee. The learned Single

Judge has allowed the writ petition by holding that there cannot

be one single order in respect of four different departmental

enquiries.

3.

Learned Senior counsel arguing the matter for the

appellant- Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Limited has

straightaway drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment

delivered in the case of Nagendra Rao vs. Indian Bank

reported in ILR 1995 Kar. 3599 [Nagendra Rao] and it is his

contention that there can be a common order passed in the facts

4

and circumstances of the case and with regard to the

Regulations governing the field. The learned Single Judge in the

judgment has referred to the Regulations that were applicable in

the case and in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 has held as under:

“13. Mr. Rajagopal then urged that the clubbing of the

two enquiry reports for the purpose of issuing a common

order of punishment was illegal and violative of

Regulation-7 of the Regulations. In support of his

submission, he placed reliance upon a Single Bench

Judgment of High Court of Madras in M.V. BALU v.

CHAIRMAN, TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD AND ANR.

1993 I LLN 867.

14. Regulation-7 upon which Mr. Rajagopal places

reliance reads thus:

"Regulation-7: (1) The Disciplinary authority,

if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may,

for reasons to be recorded by it in writing,

remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for

fresh or further inquiry and report and the

Inquiring Author