A termination based on misconduct, even of a temporary employee, must be preceded by a departmental enquiry to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J. - The order dated 20.04.2021 in WP No. 107263/2017 is under challenge in this intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, whereby the learned Single Judge set-aside the order of termination dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure-J) and directed the respondents therein i.e. Director of Municipal Administration to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

2. The parties would be referred to as they stand before the Writ Court.

3. Before the Writ Court, the appellants were respondents and 1st respondent was the petitioner.

4. Heard Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned Addl. Advocate General along with Sri. Praveen Uppar, learned HCGP for the appellants and Sri. Sunil Desai, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Sri. Rajashekar Gunjalli, learned counsel for 2nd respondent and perused the writ appeal papers.

5. Brief facts of the case are, the petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Programmer by order dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure-A). The order of appointment indicates that the appointment was on contract basis for a period of one year and the petitioner was entitled for consolidated pay of Rs. 13,000/- per month. The order of appointment would also indicate that on completion of one year period of service, contract could be terminated without issuing any notice. But the contract appointment of the petitioner as Senior Programmer was continued from time to time and even to this date. It is the case of the petitioner that remuneration is also increased from time to time. It is stated that the post of Senior Programmer is a sanctioned post and it finds place in the Cadre & Recruitment Rules of Municipal Administration Department, i.e. Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers & Employees) Rules, 2010 (Annexure-C). Method of recruitment to the post of Senior Programmer is 1/3rd by direct recruitment, 1/3rd by promotion from the post of Junior Programmer and remaining posts by deputation. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned post and completed more than 15 years of service, his services are not absorbed/regularized.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government had introduced a Scheme called Vajapayi Residential Housing Scheme (for short, 'Housing Scheme') through Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, where the beneficiary would be entitled for financial assistance of Rs. 1,19,820/- which is to be released in stages of construction. It is submitted that newspaper article dated 16.06.2017 was published alleging some irregularities in respect of release of funds for the beneficiaries of the Housing Scheme in the City Municipal Council of Gadag-Betageri, where the petitioner was working as Senior Programmer. It is alleged in the newspaper article that one Sri. Manjunath Mulagund, Member of City Municipal Counsel, Gadag-Betageri was involved in collecting illegal gratification from the beneficiaries and was also involved in manipulation and irregularities in implementing the Housing Scheme. The petitioner, who was working as Senior Programmer, was entrusted with the work of preparing GPS of residential buildings of the beneficiaries and it was alleged that the petitioner misused the GPS program and colluded with the above said member in releasing the funds without there being construction of the residential houses. Based on the said newspaper article, it is stated that 3rd respondent straightway proceeded to terminate the services of the petitioner without even issuing any notice under the impugned order dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure-J). Challenging the said order of termination, the petitioner was before the Writ Court in WP No. 107263/2017. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, by impugned order dated 20.04.2021, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of termination and directed the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service