ORDER : 1. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order bearing No. dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 as being arbitrary and illegal. He has also sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents, particularly, the respondent No.4 to consider and act upon the enquiry report dated 29.04.2023 submitted by the Enquiry Officer and to further direct the respondents to release all service benefits withheld from the petitioner during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, including but not limited to salary arrears, consideration for promotion, consequential seniority and all other attendant benefits as per the judgment dated 09.11.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.261/2020. 2. The petitioner claimed that he successfully passed the test in the trade of “Electrician” prescribed by the State Council for Vocational Training (‘SCVT’ for short) and conducted by the respondent No.3. After he was issued the Provisional State Trade Certificate, he applied for appointment as Assistant Lineman in the respondent No.2 – Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short ‘BESCOM’). The petitioner was appointed based on his qualification in terms of the official memorandum dated 12.08.2015. He contends that after his appointment, the educational records including marks cards and SCVT certificate were forwarded to the respondent No.3 for verification regarding genuineness. The respondent No.3 raised objections regarding the authenticity of the petitioner’s marks cards alleging that the petitioner had obtained approval from the head office of the respondent No.3 at Bengaluru instead of securing the same from the concerned Divisional Office. The respondents without conducting any enquiry or without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to be heard, terminated his services. This was questioned by the petitioner and two others by filing a writ petition in W.P. No.41001/2019 before this Court. A coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the Order dated 10.01.2020, quashed the orders of termination impugned therein, including the order of termination dated 10.10.2017 passed by the respondent No.4 herein terminating the services of the petitioner herein. This Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner herein into service. However, the respondent authorities instead of complying the Order dated 10.01.2020 passed in W.P. No.41001/2019, preferred W.A. No.133/2020, which was clubbed with W.A. No.261/2020 and connected cases. This Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner herein into service. However, the respondent authorities instead of complying the Order dated 10.01.2020 passed in W.P. No.41001/2019, preferred W.A. No.133/2020, which was clubbed with W.A. No.261/2020 and connected cases. The Division Bench took up the aforesaid appeal and other connected cases and by judgment dated 09.11.2020, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge in so far is it related to reinstatement of the employees including the petitioner herein into service while holding that the reinstatement of the employees shall be subject to the enquiry to be commenced and completed. The Division Bench appointed Sri H.M. Nanjunda Swamy, a retired District Judge as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to the appellants therein and he was directed to complete the proceedings within nine months from the date of commencement of the enquiry by him. The Division Bench further directed the respondent No.2 in W.A. No.261/2020/respondent No.3 herein to submit a report with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the marks cards of 173 and other employees to the appellants therein. The Enquiry officer entered reference and took up proceedings. The Joint Director of the respondent No.3 was examined as a witness. After a detailed enquiry and appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report exonerating the petitioner of all charges. It was reported that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct or falsification of the records. The petitioner contends that despite such a clear and unambiguous exoneration, the respondents failed to act upon the report. The petitioner made repeated representations requesting the implementation of the enquiry report and for closure of the disciplinary proceedings. However, the respondent No.4 issued show cause notice dated 05.08.2024 rejecting the enquiry report without assigning any reason and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be terminated. The petitioner submitted detailed response to the said notice. The respondent No.4 in terms of the impugned order, proceeded to reject the enquiry report and once again reiterated the proposed action against the petitioner. The petitioner therefore contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 terminating his services is in flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed under Regulation 11(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Regulations, 1987’). 3. The petitioner therefore contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 terminating his services is in flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed under Regulation 11(A) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Regulations, 1987’). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the procedure for taking action on an enquiry report submitted by an Enquiry Officer is provided under Regulation 11(A) of the Regulations, 1987. He contends that it was incumbent upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to first notify the reasons for not accepting the report of the Enquiry officer, provide an opportunity to the petitioner to represent against the same and thereafter, issue a notice disclosing the reasons for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer and propose the punishment to be imposed. He contends that though the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner of all charges framed against him, the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 without notifying the petitioner about the reasons for rejecting or refusing to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer, has proceeded to issue final show cause notice to terminate the services of the petitioner followed by an order of termination. He contends that this is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as Regulation 11(A) of the Regulations, 1987. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra , (1998) 7 SCC 84 . He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order of termination passed by the respondent No.4 be set at naught. 4. Per contra, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent No.4 submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lineman based on the Trade Certificate issued by the SCVT conducted by the respondent No.3. He contends that the respondent Nos.2 and 4 referred the credentials of the petitioner to the respondent No.3 who found that it was not in accordance with law and therefore, they were compelled to terminate the services of the petitioner, which was challenged by him and other similarly situated persons before this Court in various Writ Petitions. He contends that the respondent Nos.2 and 4 referred the credentials of the petitioner to the respondent No.3 who found that it was not in accordance with law and therefore, they were compelled to terminate the services of the petitioner, which was challenged by him and other similarly situated persons before this Court in various Writ Petitions. He admitted that coordinate Bench/es of this Court had allowed / disposed of the petitions including the petition in W.P. No.41001/2019 filed by the petitioner herein and two others, quashing the order/s of termination impugned therein and directed reinstatement of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, which was challenged by the respondent No.4 herein before this Court in W.A. No.133/2020, which was clubbed with W.A. No.261/2020 filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 herein and other connected cases. He also admitted that the Division Bench of this Court in terms of its judgment dated 09.11.2020, partly allowed the appeals and while doing so, had appointed a retired District Judge as an Enquiry officer to go into the allegations against the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. He submitted that the Joint Director of the respondent No.3 was examined as PW.1 before the Enquiry Officer and that the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report exonerating the petitioner of all charges. However, he contends that it is not incumbent upon the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer. He contends that the respondent Nos.2 and 4 can always reject the report of the Enquiry Officer or direct a further enquiry. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.4 had issued show cause notice to the petitioner indicating his intention to reject the report of the Enquiry Officer and to proceed to punish the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner was heard in the matter and he was given an opportunity to submit his objections and that the petitioner had submitted his objections and that after considering his objections, the impugned order of termination was passed by the respondent No.4. He, therefore, contends that there is nothing amiss and hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 also supported the contentions of the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4. 6. He, therefore, contends that there is nothing amiss and hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 also supported the contentions of the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for respondent No.4 as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3. 7. It appears from the report of the Enquiry Officer that the Enquiry Officer had specifically exonerated the petitioner of any misdoing and had reported that the documents furnished by the petitioner were all genuine. The report of the Enquiry Officer was placed before the respondent Nos.2 and 4. The respondent No.4 instead of complying with the procedure as prescribed under Regulation 11(A) of the Regulations, 1987, had issued show cause notice proposing to terminate the services of the petitioner by rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer. The show cause notice did not specify the reasons for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was not put on notice about such reasons. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner before the respondent Nos.2 and 4 rejected the report of the Enquiry Officer. The procedure for considering the report of the Enquiry Officer is prescribed under Regulation 11(A) of the Regulations, 1987, which reads as follows: "[11] [A] Action on the Inquiry Report: 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 further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Regln.-11 as far as may be. [2] The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. [3] If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that one or more of the penalties specified in Regln.-9 should be imposed on the Board employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regln.-12, make an order imposing such penalty;" 8. [3] If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that one or more of the penalties specified in Regln.-9 should be imposed on the Board employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regln.-12, make an order imposing such penalty;" 8. A perusal of the above makes it more than evident that the petitioner had to be notified about the reasons for rejection of the report of the Enquiry Officer and only upon rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer, could the respondent Nos.2 and 4 take further disciplinary action against the petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunj Behari Misra (supra) had held as follows: "18. ….When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the enquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the enquiry officer, they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the enquiry officer's report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation, the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the disciplinary authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as explained In Karunakar case ( (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L and S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704). 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 9. In view of the above, the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner passed by the respondent No.4 being mala fide and without following the principles of natural justice and in violation of Regulation 11(A)(2) of the Regulations, 1987, deserves to be quashed. Hence, the following: ORDER : i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order bearing No. dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 terminating the services of the petitioner is quashed. The case is remitted back to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to issue a fresh notice informing the petitioner about the reasons for rejecting the report of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra , (1998) 7 SCC 84 . iii. The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.