Allowed

Sri. Balachandra S/O Shivappa Pujari v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024WP/102220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Public Prosecutor appointed on contract was terminated based on a Principal Civil Judge's complaint about professional conduct without any enquiry. Holding that stigmatic termination even of a contractual appointee requires at least a summary enquiry, the court quashed the termination orders for breach of natural justice and remitted the matter.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Balachandra S/O Shivappa Pujari Vs the State… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11094 WP No. 102220 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.102220 OF 2024(S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI BALACHANDRA S/O. SHIVAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS ASSISTANT, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNGUND TALUK: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 118. (BY SRI H. M. DHARIGOND & SANGEETHA KALLIMANI, ADVOCATES)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION, (POLICE SERVICE-B) VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), PROSECUTIONS AND GOVERNMENT LITIGATIONS, OFFICE AT DRIECTOR, 6^TH FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOUDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶14

THE LAW OFFICER (SENIOR), DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTION, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 7-3-2024 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT UNDER GOVERNMENT

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11094 WP No. 102220 of 2024

¶19

ORDER NO. OE/27/PPE/2024 BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-M, ORDER DATED 19-03-2024 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER NO. DPN/CSHA-1A/25/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19-3-2024 PASSED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT UNDER NO.KA.A(HE)/C.SHA/422/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Challenging orders at Annexures-M, N and P passed by respondents no.1, 2 and 3 respectively and thereby terminating appointment of petitioner as Assistant Public Prosecutor (for short, ‘APP’), this writ petition is filed.

¶23

Sri H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as APP by order dated 29.08.2022 on contract basis and agreement was signed on 27.09.2022 at Annexure-A. Thereafter, petitioner took charge as APP in Court of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Hungund and has been discharging his duties honestly and sincerely. Such being case, on 25.11.2023, he received a notice as per Annexure-E making allegations against him, which was suitably replied as per Annexure-F. However, Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hungund issued one more notice dated 28.11.2023 as per Annexure-G and thereafter a complaint was filed on

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11094 WP No. 102220 of 2024

¶25

29.11.2023 as per Annexure-H. After obtaining say of petitioner and visiting his office, his work was appreciated and some suggestions/advises for conducting litigation in a proper manner were issued.

¶26

But, based on report at Annexure-L, impugned orders were passed terminating services of petitioner. It was submitted, though Clause-21 of agreement provides for termination of services in case of violation, since termination was on serious allegations, an enquiry was incumbent. Termination without enquiry would be per-se illegal and sought for allowing writ petition.

¶27

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for respondents sought to justify impugned order. It was submitted that, action was initiated on complaint by Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hungund about misbehavior. As there was violation of terms of agreement, respondents exercising powers under agreement, terminated contract and same was not specifically enforceable. Therefore, sought for dismissal.

¶28

Heard learned counsel and perused records.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11094 WP No. 102220 of 2024

¶31

From above, appointment of petitioner as Assistant

¶32

Public Prosecutor on contact basis by respondents is not in dispute. Issuance of notice to petitioner about misconduct prior to passing order of termination is also not in dispute. However, while petitioner contends considering gravity of charges/allegations an enquiry was incumbent, respondents contend that termination was in compliance with provisions of agreement.

¶33

A bare perusal of impugned order would indicate reasons for termination were service of petitioner was found to be non-effective and respondents were unhappy about his work style. Allegations in Annexure-B are about failure to address correspondence to Government for appointment of Special Public Prosecutor, while in Annexure-G, there are five allegations, which have bearing on professional conduct of petitioner and therefore serious/grave. Under such circumstances, while power to terminate contractual appointment, appointment cannot be disputed as held by this Court in case of S.H.Mohan Kumar V/s. State of Karnataka,

¶34

R/by its Secretary, reported in ILR 2005, KAR 5517 termination of appointment without enquiry even in case of

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11094 WP No. 102220 of 2024

¶36

grave allegations i.e. stigmatic termination would not be justified. Indeed a formal enquiry may not be necessary but minimum required would be a summary enquiry which is fair.

¶37

In view of above, as there is non-compliance with principles of natural justice, impugned order stands quashed. Matter is remitted back to respondents for enquiry and further action, if so advised.

¶38

It would be needless to state that petitioner would continue in service.

¶39

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶40

CLK,VB CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri. Balachandra S/O Shivappa Pujari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Balachandra S/O Shivappa Pujari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt P Nagashri W/O K Vinaykumar Vs Sri K Vinaykumar S/O K Vijrakumara Swamy

Shri Pramod S/O Appasaheb Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka

Sushila Naik W/O Ramesh Naik @ Sushila Bhimappa Nilajagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashidhar J. Sirdeshpande Vs the State of Karnataka

H.D. Shivaram S/O H.D. Eranna Vs Branch Manager

Smt. Usha W/O Anil Chougula Vs the State of Karnataka