Point of Law: Where the form of the order is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is always open to the Court before which the order is challenged to go behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Application Number 10826/2019 whereby the application filed by the petitioner questioning the order of discharge is dismissed.

2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Police Constable (Wireless) in the respondent No. 2-Department by order dated 13.06.2017. By notification dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure-A5), Police Department invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil) (Male and Female) and it also provided an opportunity to the in-service candidates. The petitioner being the in-service candidate made application for the post of Sub Inspector in pursuance to the above said notification on obtaining no objection from the Department. The petitioner was issued with admission ticket for the competitive examination, scheduled to be held on 13.01.2019. The CCB Police, Bengaluru had received information that some persons had conspired for leakage of question paper of written examination of PSI scheduled to be held on 13.01.2019 and contacting the candidates assuring question papers and answers by collecting Rs. 30 lakhs. In that regard Crime No. 291/2019 came to be registered on 12.01.2019. In connection with the above complaint the CCB Police had taken the petitioner into custody along with others for interrogation on 28.01.2019. On 29.01.2019 the petitioner was produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody till 11.02.2019. Subsequently he was granted bail and was released on 02.02.2019. It is stated that thereafter petitioner was not taken to duty.

3. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 obtained a report from the Police Inspector (Wireless), District Control Room, Bengaluru, against the petitioner. Based on the said report, Annexure-A13 was passed under Rule 6 of Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977 (for short ‘1977 Rules’) discharging the petitioner from service. Challenging the said order of discharge the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No. 10826/2019 contending that the order of discharge is wholly illegal and it is a stigmatic order. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 30.09.2021 dismissed the application holding that the authorities have found the petitioner to be unsuitable to hold the post for the reasons stated in the impugned order of discharge. Aggrieved by both the order of discharge as well as the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Heard Sri. Gangadhar. J.M, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for respondents and perused the writ petition papers.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that the order of discharge is a stigmatic order. It is contended that a reading of the impugned order of discharge itself indicates that the petitioner was discharged alleging that criminal case in Crime No. 291/2019 is registered and the discharge order is based on the report obtained by the appointing authority in that regard.

6. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to the impugned order submits that the impugned order is not an order of discharge simplicitor, but it alleges that the petitioner is irresponsible in his duty and the petitioner has exhibited misconduct by involving himself in criminal proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the authority alleges misconduct, it is mandatory for the appointing authority to conduct enquiry and thereafter to discharge the petitioner. Learned counsel referring to Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the ‘1977 Rules’ submits that Rule 7 of ‘1977 Rules’ provides for conducting enquiry where misconduct is alleged against a probationer. Rule 7 of ‘1977 Rules’ provides for conducting