Disposed

Dr Kiran R Naik Son of Rudra Naik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/104360/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commandant of Home Guards, Belagavi, challenged his termination notification issued before expiry of his five-year tenure, terming it stigmatic ('misuse') without an enquiry. Court quashed the notification without reinstatement and directed respondents to consider his candidature for extension/re-appointment per Rule 8 proviso.

What did the court decide?

Notification dated 08.12.2023 quashed without reinstatement; respondents directed to consider petitioner for extension/re-appointment in accordance with law.

Dr Kiran R Naik Son of Rudra Naik Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12799 WP No. 104360 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.104360 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. KIRAN R. NAIK SON OF RUDRA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 54, I MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, WEST SIDE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BELAGAVI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 590 010.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT (POLICE ASSISTANCE SERVICE), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU EMAIL [email protected]

¶14

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

¶15

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND COMMANDANT GENERAL HOME GUARDS AND DIRECTOR OF CIVIL DEFENSE NO 1 A.U.M ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 042.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NUMBER � � �� DATED 8^TH DECEMBER 2023 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12799 WP No. 104360 of 2024

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging notification dated 08.12.2023 at Annexure-A

¶24

and seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider candidature of petitioner for extension/second term, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Sri Shridhar Prabhu, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was appointed as Commandant of Home Guards for Belagavi District under Notification dated 25.01.2019 at Annexure-B. It was submitted, said appointment was for a period of five years. But before completion of same, respondents issued impugned Notification for terminating his services before its end on 25.02.2024. It was submitted, though as per appointment notification tenure would end on 25.02.2024, notification was being questioned only on ground that termination was on misconduct and stigmatic, without holding enquiry. Relying upon decision of this Court in W.P.nos.81153-81154/2012 disposed of on 20.02.2014, it was submitted, conduct of enquiry, where removal was on stigmatic grounds was held to be mandatory. On said ground, learned counsel sought for allowing petition.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12799 WP No. 104360 of 2024

¶28

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for

¶29

respondent no.1 sought to justify impugned notification. It was submitted, as tenure of appointment under Annexure-B had already lapsed, relief sought in writ petition would not yield any benefit to petitioner. Therefore, writ petition was academic. It was further submitted, petitioner himself had submitted resignation as per Annexure-D on 10.11.2023. Such being case, he was estopped from questioning impugned notification.

¶30

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶31

record.

¶32

From above, first question that would require consideration would be: “Whether petition would derive any benefit if reliefs sought are granted?”

¶33

In this regard, perusal of first proviso to Rule 8 of Karnataka Home Guards Rules, 1963, would reveal that a

¶34

person appointed as Home Guard will be entitled for re-appointment after expiry of his term and in this context, contended that even if his tenure had expired or his appointment was open to be terminated on ground of resignation only to prevent petitioner from seeking extension,

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12799 WP No. 104360 of 2024

¶36

notification depicts that he was removed for only ‘misuse’. Therefore, on ground any basis as well as being preceded by enquiry, it would not sustain.

¶37

Right to claim extension would be valuable right as continuation. This court, having held that stigmatic removal or termination of tenure would require to be preceded by enquiry and admittedly, no enquiry having been held, impugned Notification at Annexure-A would required to be culled out. Therefore, without regard to fact that tenure of appointment as per Annexure-B has expired, only on ground that removal is staged to be stigmatic due to ‘misuse’ without there being an enquiry, order at Annexure-A stands quashed but without any direction for reinstatement. Respondents are directed to consider petitioner’s candidature for extension/re-appointment, in accordance with law.

¶38

With above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶40

AV CT-ASC

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Dr Kiran R Naik Son of Rudra Naik v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Kiran R Naik Son of Rudra Naik v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Shabbir Ghorikhan S/O Mohammad Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Shwetha S/O Manjunath Alias Manjappa Madiwal Vs Manjunath Alias Manjappa Madiwal S/O Krishna Papul Madiwal

Smt Bharathi W/O Subhash Patil Vs Subhash Ishwar Patil

Gurushiddappa S/O Sangappa Belavatagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Seeta W/O. Late Ramchandra Nayak Vs the Senior Assistant Director

Yellappa S/O. Tippanna Karigar, Vs the Management of