Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun (Mallappa) S/O Ningappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 August, 2020
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
Bench: Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.200641/2017 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
Mallikarjun S/o Ningappa Pujari
Age: 32 years, Occ: Now Nil
R/o Kuralgera Tq.Jewargi
Dist. Kalaburagi
... Petitioner
(By Sri Nitesh Kumar, Advocate
for Sri P.Vilaskumar Marthand Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through Principal Secretary
Rural Development & Panchayatraj
Department, M.S.Building
Bangalore-09
2. The Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Panchayat, Kalaburagi-02
3. The Executive Officer
Taluka Panchayat Office
Jewargi-585 310
Dist. Kalaburagi
2
4. The Gram Panchayat Kurulgera
Through its Panchayat Development
Officer, Kuralagera
Tq. Jewargi, Dist.Kalaburagi-585 110
... Respondents
(By Smt.Anuradha M.Desai, GA for R1;
Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate
For R2 to R4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of
certiorari for quashing order of dismissal issued by the
respondent No.2 vide No.ZPK/ABHI/UKHAYOZ/60/2015-
16/838 dated 04/05.01.2016 which is at Annexure-A and
consequently order for reinstatement of the petitioner into
service with full back wages and also continuity of service.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has claimed that he was appointed as a Computer Operator by respondent No.4, initially for a term of six months and thereafter, he was continued from the year 2008 till the year 2016. He claimed that respondent No.2 without conducting any enquiry of whatsoever nature issued an official memorandum dated 04/05.01.2016 (Annexure-A), 3 terminating the services of the petitioner accusing him of misappropriation and directly responsible for violation of the guidelines relating to MGNREGA scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the ground on which he was terminated is stigmatic and that there cannot be termination on stigmatic ground without there being a corresponding domestic enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner would seek support from an order dated 07.02.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.202543/2016 and also a judgment in the case of Mary Kutty vs. The Hindusthan Times and Another reported in ILR 2006 KAR 1772 .
2. The counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 though vehemently opposed the writ petition but yet conceded the position in law that there cannot be a termination based on stigmatic ground without an enquiry even if such an employee is on contract basis. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is appreciated. The purpose of an enquiry is an extension of the rule of law 4 that no person should be condemned unheard. If an employee is terminated from service on grounds of moral turpitude, it may impair his right to seek employment elsewhere. It is now trite that even if a person has no right to a substantive post, yet he cannot be terminated on any ground which are stigmatic in nature without there being a corresponding domestic enquiry.
3. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with effect from today. The petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages, since he has not rendered services in the interregnum .
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR