ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the order dated 13.12.2024, passed by the respondent-Corporation, whereby, the petitioner's services as a KSRTC Security Guard (Group-3) came to be terminated and seeking consequential relief.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father while in service after due selection process, including verification of documents, physical test. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed and had joined the service. While the petitioner was discharging his duties, a show cause notice came to be issued alleging the petitioner has produced false educational documents related to his disqualification. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner on the premise that he had not appeared to the concerned semester examination and had secured appointment by misrepresentation.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without conducting any departmental enquiry and without affording him an effective opportunity of hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is stigmatic and punitive in nature founded on allegations of misconduct. No enquiry whatsoever was held before passing the order of termination. The alleged verification report was never furnished to the petitioner nor was there an opportunity to rebut the same. Once an employee has entered a service, the termination on allegation of fake certificates cannot be done without following the principles of natural justice.

5. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division of this Court in the case of Managing Director, Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd., and Another Vs. Sri Rohitkomkar and Another, W.A.No.261/2020 and connected matters D.D 09.11.2020 (Rohitkomkar) wherein, identical termination orders were set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner secured appointment by producing fake educational documents. As per the terms of appointment and relevant regulations, the Corporation is entitled to cancel the appointment if documents are found to be vague. The termination is justified and no interference is warranted.

7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the impugned order of termination dated 13.12.2024, passed without conducting a departmental inquiry and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing is sustainable in law?”

8. It is not in dispute that the impugned order is founded on an allegation that the petitioner has produced fake educational documents. The order imputes misrepresentation, and therefore, casts a clear stigma on the petitioner. A perusal of the record indicates that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut the material relied by the respondents. The termination is thus not a discharge simpliciter but a punitive termination.

9. The Division Bench, while adjudicating the said batch of Rohitkomkar placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and Another, AIR 1984 SC 636 (Anoop Jaiswal) wherein, at paragraph Nos. 12 and 13, the Apex Court has held as under:

“12. It is, therefore, now well settled that 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. If the court holds that the order though in the form is merely a determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of punishment, the Court would not be debarred, merely because of the form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law upon the employee.

13. In the instant case, the period of proba