The General Manager (H) v. Shri Madhavendra Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REVIEW PETITION NO. 869 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

¶1THE GENERAL MANAGER (H) HELICOPTER DIVISION HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED VIMANAPURA POST BENGALURU-560017.

¶2THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DESIGN COMPLEX HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED VIMANAPURA POST BENGALURU-560017. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRADYUMNA L. NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI MADHAVENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI RAGHAVENDRA SINGH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.9, GURUSIDHI APARTMENT GANGAPUR ROAD, MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L. MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADVOCATE)

by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:16854-DB( RP(No.(869(of(2022( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( , THIS, REVIEW, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 114,READ,WITH,ORDER,XLVII,RULE,1,OF,CPC,,1908,AND, ARTICLE,226,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING, TO, ALLOW, THE, PRESENT, PETITION, FILED, BY, THE, PETITIONERS,AND,PASS,AN,ORDER,FOR,REVIEW,OF,THE, IMPUGNED,JUDGMENT,DATED,14,JUNE,2022,PASSED,BY, THIS, , HON'BLE, COURT, IN, WRIT, APPEAL, NO.5678/2017, AND,ETC., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,ADMISSION,,THIS, DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,JAYANT,BANERJI, and,, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,RAJESH,RAI,K, , ORAL(ORDER( (PER:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,JAYANT,BANERJI)( , This, review, petition, filed, by, the, employer, seeking, review, of, the, judgment, and, order, dated, 14.06.2022, passed, in, Writ, Appeal, No.5678/2019, in, Writ, Petition, No.5373/2010., It, appears, that, the, appellant/respondent, herein,was,posted,as,the,Deputy,Manager,in,MIG,Complex, of, Hindustan, Aeronautics, Limited, at, Nasik., He, was, transferred, by, an, order, dated, 30.04.2001, and, was, relieved, of, his, duties, at, Nasik., The, respondent, sought, leave,for,the,month,of,May,,2001,on,medical,grounds.,He,

sought extension of leave for another month. However, his application was rejected and the period of absence was treated to be unauthorised.

¶2A departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent and he was served with charge sheet. A penalty of dismissal from service was imposed pursuant to an enquiry conducted ex-parte. The order was assailed in a writ petition filed by the respondent which came to be allowed by a Bench of this Court on 13.06.2006 and the matter was remitted to the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry afresh.

¶3The Disciplinary Authority, by an order of

13.01.2009, found the charges to be proved and imposed the penalty of removal from services on the respondent. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a departmental review petition which was dismissed.

¶4The validity of the order dated 13.01.2009 was challenged in the writ petition and the learned Single

Judge modified the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement from service and directed the employer to settle the terminal and pensionary benefits to the respondent herein as if the respondent herein was compulsorily retired. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged in the writ appeal mentioned aforesaid.

¶5The Division Bench noted that the findings of the learned Single Judge in favour of the respondent were not under challenge. It was therefore held that after the learned Single Judge having held that the review petitioner having failed to adduce any evidence to prove the charges, could not have substituted the penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent with that of compulsory retirement. It was held that the learned Single Judge was not justified in substituting the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority with the penalty of compulsory retirement from the service without assigning any reasons.

¶6Accordingly, the judgment dated 09.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as it inflicted the penalty of compulsory retirement on the respondent was set aside and it was held that the respondent is entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶7We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶8The sole contention of learned counsel for the employer herein is that once the Division Bench had held that the penalty of compulsory retirement could not be imposed on the respondent, the order of removal from service imposed on the respondent stood revived. Therefore, there was no reason to hold that the respondent was entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶9It is the case of the review petitioner herein that the penalty imposed by the Competent Departmental Authority of removal from service was made in terms of

Rule 6 of the HAL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984, which reads as follows: "RULE-6 Punishments: The following punishments may for good and sufficient reasons be imposed on officers by the Competent Authorities empowered to impose such punishments under these rules:

(i) Minor Penalties: XXX

(ii) Major Penalties: XXX

(i) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or a Corporation/ Company owned or controlled by the Government;"

¶10In our opinion, the direction regarding consequential benefits made by the Division Bench can

only mean that the respondent be paid all legitimate dues that he may be entitled to, if any, consequent to his removal from service under the service rules. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, this review petition is disposed of. All pending IA's stand dismissed.

Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2