ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 27-07-2018 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated and as a consequential relief seeks a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to reinstate her into service as an Accountant in the 3rd respondent/District Town Municipal Cell, Bagalkot.

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as an Accountant on temporary basis in the Town Municipal Cell, Bagalkot in terms of an appointment order dated 03-10-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. It appears that the petitioner, without any break in service, continued to work with the 3rd respondent. While so functioning the petitioner along with all other similarly situated employees approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 103135 of 2016 and connected cases seeking regularization of their services and the writ petitions come to be disposed of by an order dated 20-02-2017 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner along with others for regularization and till such consideration, the services of all those petitioners should not be disturbed.

3. After the said direction being issued, a show cause notice is issued to the petitioner on the score that she has remained unauthorisedly absent and her absence has caused a block to various projects initiated by the 2nd respondent/Town Municipal Council. On receipt of the show cause notice dated 04-06-2018, the petitioner submits her reply on 13-06-2018. Notwithstanding detailed reply, the petitioner comes to be terminated from service without holding any inquiry whatsoever, which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The subject petition comes to be allowed by an order dated 15-09-2021 directing reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% of backwages. This order is called in question by the State in Writ Appeal No. 100309 of 2022. The Division Bench by allowing the appeal, remits the matter back to the hands of the learned single Judge for re-consideration of rival claims afresh. It is, therefore, the petition is reconsidered for the second time after close to 5 years of its filing.

5. Heard Sri Vinay S. Koujalagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri Prakash Hosamane, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the order passed on 15-09-2021 did not call for any interference as it was an admitted fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated on issuance of show cause notice without holding any inquiry. Merely because the petitioner was a temporary employee, it is no law that on allegations one can be terminated without holding any inquiry or affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. He would further contend that the State which chose not to file any statement of objections for close to three years, files an application in the writ appeal before the Division Bench contending that inquiry of some sort was conducted and the Division Bench has remitted the matter back forcing the petitioner back to what she was five years ago. He would seek allowing of the petition with exemplary costs.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner was a temporary employee and no inquiry need be conducted against a temporary employee even if the petitioner has been terminated on account of allegation against her. He would contend that statement of objections were not filed in the writ petition, but an application was filed before the Division Bench in the writ appeal. All that the State wanted is liberty to hold an inquiry and pass appropriate orders. Before the present bench also he would submit that there are no objections to file but what was required was only moulding of relief to the exten