IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 29686 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT ANITHA R SHETTY W/O. K. RAVINDRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GARADI HOUSE, KALLABETTU VILLAGE AND POST-574 197, MOODABIDRI TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER Digita lly signed by (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR)

SUNITHA K S SRI. VEERESH MAHESH UPPIN., ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION, D.K. DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, K.S. RAO ROAD, KODIYALBAIL, MANGALORE-575 003.

2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER KALLABETTU SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA KALLABETTU AND THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTORS OFFICE, MANGALORE-574 197, D.K. DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA B, AGA )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 23.09.2025 BEARING NO. AR 36- 2/22/AR36 PGS/2/2-25-26 PASSED BY THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (ANNX-H) IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. SET ASIDE THE LETTER/REFERENCE DTD. 23.09.2025 BEARING NO.AR 36/S 2/32/PJC-2-2025-26 PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNX-J). DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 23.09.2025 (ANNX-G) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, vide Annexures "H" and the communication dated 23.09.2025 passed by respondent No.2.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

3. The petitioner was the member of respondent No.2 Society and was working as a Chief Executive Officer in the said Society. During the course of service, one Sri.Alwyn S.Menanzes filed a complaint against the petitioner, making false and baseless allegations, due to which, respondent No.1 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. Respondent No.1, even before the expiry of the time fixed under the show- cause notice, has passed an order of suspension and subsequently, passed an order of dismissal from service.

4. It is contented that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also contented that no enquiry was held before passing the impugned orders. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition.

5. The respondents despite grant of sufficient opportunity, have not filed the statement of objections.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no enquiry was held by respondent Nos.1 and 2 before passing the impugned orders. He submits that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence on these grounds, He prays to allow the writ petition.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned orders and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

9. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

10. It is undisputed that the petitioner was working as a Chief Executive Officer in respondent No.2 Society. Based on a complaint submitted by Sri.Alwyn S.Menanzes against the petitioner, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 24.07.2025 to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. But, before the expiry of the time mentioned in the show-cause notice, respondent No.1 passed an order dated 23.09.2025 vide Annexure "H". Further, respondent No.2 has also passed an order vide Annexure "K" dated 29.03.2025 during the pendency of this petition.

11. From the p