Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J
SRI RAMESH N – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 27146 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.C. Balaraj
For the Respondents: G. Ramesh Naik
Dismissal from service that attaches stigma requires a proper enquiry following the principles of natural justice and statutory rules; failure to comply with court directions to conduct such an enquiry renders the dismissal order illegal.
Headnote:The petitioner, a Gramasahayak, challenged an order of dismissal from service. The case involves the application of Rule 11 of the CCA Rules and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Previously, the court in WP.No.12160/2020 had set aside an earlier dismissal order dated 28.10.2019 due to the absence of a proper enquiry and remitted the matter for a fresh enquiry. The current petition challenges a subsequent order dated 28.06.2024, alleging that the respondent failed to comply with the court's directions to conduct a necessary enquiry. The primary issue is whether the respondent complied with the judicial directions to conduct a proper enquiry before passing the order of dismissal. The court reasoned that any order that attaches stigma or deprives a person of their livelihood must adhere to the principles of natural justice and statutory rules, specifically Rule 11 of the CCA Rules. The court observed that the second respondent did not conduct the necessary inquiry as required by law and in violation of the previous court directions. The writ petition is thereby allowed. Impugned order dated 28.06.2024 is thereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to second respondent for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations and directions issued by this Court in WP.No.12160/2020 and to conduct necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F NO.HOA/CR/01/2023-24(A4) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH BACK WAGES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is directed against the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 28.06.2024 whereby the second respondent removed/dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 28.10.2019.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court in WP.No.12160/2020 at Annexure-C allowed the said petition and set aside the order of dismissal/removal from service dated 28.10.2019 and remitted the matter back to the second respondent to conduct necessary enquiry and to proceed further in accordance with law. In the said order, this Court held as under:
ORDER
"1. The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the communication bearing No.EST(1)42/2019/68719/A1 dated 22.10.2019 vide Annexure-A and Annexure-B proceedings bearing No.EST/CR/35/2019-20/A4 dated 28.10.2019 whereby the first respondent directed the second respondent to dismiss the petitioner and to submit a report and the Tahsildar, as directed by the first respondent dismissed the petitioner from the post of Gramasahayak on the forenoon of 28.10.2019.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Vinay N. for Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Even after sufficient opportunity, the State has not filed statement of objections. At the request of learned Additional Government Advocate, the matter was directed to be listed today for filing statement of objections. Learned AGA would submit, on instructions, he would make oral submission.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant in the year 2003 and he worked at various places in Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada district. A show-cause notice dated 27.08.2019 at Annexure-D was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his reply as to why action in accordance with law should not be initiated alleging irregularity in issuing Hakku Patras and on the allegation that the petitioner got issued Hakku Patras in the name of his wife as well as to his relatives. The petitioner submitted his reply under Annexure-E dated 31.08.2019. In the meanwhile, there was complaint against the petitioner before the Lokayukta on the same allegations. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply and the petitioner is said to have submitted his reply. The report at Annexure-J was submitted by Investigating Officer, Inspector of Police at Karnataka Lokayukta, Mangaluru, wherein he also alleges irregularities in issuing Hakku Patras and issuance of Hakku Patras in favour of petitioner’s wife and also his relatives. The petitioner was issued with notice to submit his reply on the report. The petitioner submitted his reply at Annexure-K. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner taking note of Annexure-J, report of the Investigating Officer, issued communication at Annexure-A dated 22.10.2019, directing the second respondent-Tahsildar to take action to dismiss the petitioner and to report. In pursuance of Annexure-A/Communication date 22.10.2019, the second respondent-Tahsildar under proceedings at Annexure-B dated 28.10.2019 dismissed the petitioner and relieved him from the duties of Gramasahayak on the afternoon of 28.10.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents have failed to conduct any enquiry on the allegations contained in the show-cause notic
